AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of shares of S R K Industries Ltd of Rs. 47,23,065/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. The interconnected issue involved is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the addition made towards unexplained expenditure on commission amounting to Rs. 48,085/- since the sale consideration was treated as bogus. in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this appeal are that the assessee filed return of income for the Asst Year 2014-15 on 27.12.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 4,85,840/-. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gains derived on sale of listed company shares where Securities transaction tax (STT in short) was duly suffered by the assessee. The workings of the same are as under:- Nikki Global Finance Ltd Sale consideration of 6000 shares in AY 2014-15 48,94,000 Less: Cost of Purchase of 6000 shares in AY 2013-14 8,12,158 Long Term Capital Gains Exempt 40,81,842 The assessee purchased 6000 shares of Nikki Global Finance Ltd for Rs. 8,12,158/- during the period from 1.6.2012 to 4.6.2012 and sold the same in Asst Year 2014-15 for Rs. 48,94,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. It emerges at the outset that both the lower authorities have adopted identical line of reasoning in treating the sale consideration received on transfer of shares in aforesaid companies to be bogus thereby treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. The ld DR drew our attention to a voluminous exercise undertaken by the ld AO involving a long drawn process of stock market prices rigging in collusion with the various entry operators. The ld DR argued that the assessee had made investment in shares of the aforesaid companies not having any sound financial position or business activity so as to justify the long term capital gains to this extent. The cases of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR (SC) were quoted in support to plead that both the lower authorities have made it clear in their respective order(s) about the assessee having acted in collusion with various entry operators for the purpose of bogus long term capital gains in issue. There is no dispute that assessee having derived the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG in short) on transfer of shares held in Nik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asad & Co.. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 26 of the paper book which is the de mat transaction statement wherein we note that on 15th June, 2012 this 25000 shares have been deposited of M/s. NFGL by inter depository transaction (CBS). Thus, we find that the AO erred in recording a finding of fact that the assessee had made the purchase of M/s. NFGL not through Stock Exchange but it was an off market transaction. We find that the assessee had purchased the shares of M/s. NFGL through registered broker M/s. M. Prasad & Co. which was a registered stock broker of the Bombay Stock Exchange and on 13.06.2012 assessee purchased 25000 shares at Rs. 128.25 per share on which STT was paid and the total transaction of Rs. 32,21,213.10 was paid through account payee cheque to the registered broker and the shares were deposited in the demat account (D. P. Stock HLDG Corp of India Ltd.) The following other documents were also filed before the authorities below: i) Copy of balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2013 (FY 2012-13 corresponding to AY 2013-14) along with details of investments (page nos. 4 and 5 of paper book) wherein 25000 shares of M/s. NFGL of value of Rs. 32,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and/or the Investigation wing. However, the AO has merely mentioned the date of letter issued by the Director of Investigation. Save and except the date of the letter, according to Ld. AR, there is nothing brought on record by the AO as to how the investigation report concerned the assessee and/or the shares sold by the assessee. The ld AR submitted that the AO on pages 6-9 of the assessment order had merely stated that the Investigation Wing and SEBI conducted some inquiries in respect of some other Companies and as per the report prepared by them, certain patterns and features were identified by them and as per the AO such patterns and features were emerging in the case related to the shares of the Company (i.e. M/s. NFGL) which the assessee dealt with. However save and except making a passing remark or mere reference to so called patterns, there is nothing in the assessment order from which it can be found that the Assessee or the Company (M/s. NFGL) or the Brokers were adversely named/commented upon in the report of investigation. According to ld AR, the AO identified 10-11 adverse features on page 6-7 of the Assessment order, however he wondered as to how these features were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO -[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO - ITA No. 452/Hyd/2015 (Hyderabad Tribunal) (vi) Anil Nand Kishore Goyal vs.ACIT - ITA Nos. 1256/PN/2012 (Pune Tribunal) (vii) CIT vs. Jamna Devi Agrawal - [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bom HC) 6. The ld AR submitted that all the observations, conclusions and findings of the lower authorities are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. According to ld AR, it is trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion howsoever strong it may be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnished all evidences in support of the claim of the assessee that it earned LTCG on transactions of his investment in shares. The purchase of shares had been accepted by the AO in the year of its acquisition and thereafter until the same were sold. The transactions were all through account payee cheques and reflected in the books of accounts. The purchase and sale of shares and the sale of shares were also reflected in Demat account statements. The sale of shares suffered STT, brokerage etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the transactions were bogus. The ld AR referred to the following judgments of Jurisdictional High Court:- (i) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] (Cal HC) - In this case the ld AO found that the formal evidences produced by the assessee to support huge losses claimed in the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were stage managed. The Hon'ble High Court held that the opinion of the AO that the assessee generated a sizeable amount of loss out of prearranged transactions so as to reduce the quantum of income liable for tax might have been the view expressed by the ld AO but he miserably failed to su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. It was also found that the assessee produced the contract notes, details of demat accounts and produced documents showing all payments were received by the assessee through banks. On these facts, the appeal of the revenue was summarily dismissed by High Court. 9. The ld AR submitted before us that where the purchase and sale transactions are supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements etc., and when the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by the ld AO in earlier years, the same could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court further held that it is not enough to show circumstances which might create suspicion because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. The ld AR submitted that similar view has been taken in the following judgments while deciding the issue relating to exemption claimed by the assessee on LTCG on alleged Penny Socks. (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs. J. C. Agarwal HUF - ITYA No. 32/Agr/2007 (Agra ITAT) 11. The ld AR further submitted that the AO was not justified in taking an adverse view against the assessee on the ground of abnormal price rise of the shares and alleging price rigging. It was submitted that there is no allegation in orders of SEBI and/or the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing to the effect that the assessee, the Companies dealt in and/or his broker was a party to the price rigging or manipulation of price in BSE. The ld AR referred to the following judgments in support of this contention wherein under similar facts of the case it was held that the AO was not justified in refusing to allow the benefit under section 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding to him, there is no evidence on record to disbelieve that the assessee sold shares through registered share and stock broker with Bombay Stock Exchange. The assessee produced all evidences to explain the source of the amounts received by the assessee from the broker, therefore according to ld AR, the AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee and/or the brokers and/or the Company in which the assessee dealt with to adversely hold that the assessee was a beneficiary to the modus operandi adopted by different entities / brokers / entry operators. The ld AR submitted that, in view of the aforesaid judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal, various case laws relied on by the AO against the assessee are irrelevant in as much as the said orders are based on conclusions drawn ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistered broker and the shares were deposited in the demat account (D. P. Stock HLDG Corp of India Ltd.) 16. The sale of M/s. NFGL shares took place through the same registered stock broker of Bombay Stock Exchange from 05.08.2013 to 30.12.2013 for sale price ranging from Rs. 820/- to Rs. 921/- per scrip (see contract note placed from pages 7 - 17 of paper book). We note from perusal of pages 18-19 of paper book, which reveals that the payment for purchase of shares were made through Axis Bank of assessee and payment has been made on 14.06.2012 vide cheque no. 138919 for an amount of Rs. 32,21,213.10 to the recognized stock broker of Bombay Stock Exchange M. Prasad & Co. We also note from perusal of pages 20-23 of paper book which is the extract of pass book of assessee in Punjab National Bank wherein we note that assessee had received sale consideration through bank transaction and we verified the contract note of sale placed at pages 7 to 17 and tallied the entries of sale consideration received by the assessee in her bank account and find it to be correct. We on perusal of page 24, which is the transaction cum holding statement of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... note that the assessee had furnished all primary evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, de Mat statements and bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transaction relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. By adducing these evidences, the assessee had discharged the onus on her to prove the genuineness of the transaction which yielded her LTCG. Once the assessee had discharged her onus, then the onus shifted to the shoulders of AO then the AO has to examine the veracity of the documents produced by the assessee and if it is found to be correct and valid then in all fairness the AO should accept the claim of LTCG. In case if the AO on verification finds that the documents produced by the assessee is false or fabricated, then the AO should bring his adverse findings to the notice of the assessee and confront her with the adverse material/findings. Then again the onus will shift to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Here, in the present case is concerned, the AO after going through the documents, failed to return a finding that documents produced by assessee to substantiate the yield of LTCG was false or fabricated. The facts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in any wrongful actions. The AO has merely carved out certain features/modusoperandi of companies indulging in practices not sanctioned by law and as mentioned in such report. We note that neither any investigation were carried out against the assessee, nor against the brokers to whom the assessee dealt with or the companies in which the assessee dealt with the purchase and sale of shares in question were done by the AO. The transaction in question and the fact that the shares in question were quoted and transaction happened on the floor of the stock exchange in public view which action has not been interdicted by the securities watchdog SEBI. In such a scenario, to paint the entire share transaction of M/s. NFGL which yielded high capital gain as bogus is not correct without materials to support such an adverse finding. We note in the light of the aforesaid relevant evidences, the action of the AO and CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances and human conduct and preponderance of probability against the assessee. For that we rely on the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the broker was suspended for some time. It is the assessee's contention that even though there are allegations against the broker, and for that reason the assessee cannot be held liable on this point, the tribunal held that - "As a matter of fact the AO doubted the integrity of the broker and the broker firm and also AO observed that the assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of any discussion of trading of shares. The AO relied the loss of Rs. 25,30,396/- only on the basis of information submitted by stock as fictitious. The AO has also not doubted the genuineness of the documents placed by the assessee on record. The AO's observation and conclusion are merely based on information. Therefore on such basis, no disallowance can be made and accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. This ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed." We agree with the reasoning of the tribunal on this point also. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The suggested question, in our opinion do not raise any substantial question of law. 19. In the light of the documen....