TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application along with the Appeal, we proceed to decide the appeal and stay application together. 3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the assessee filed their return of income on 03/08/2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 20,060/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, learned assessing officer found that the assessee had shown the long-term capital gain of Rs. 19,85,891/- from the sale of shares and has claimed the same as exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. Assessee furnished the requisite information sought by the learned Assessing Officer and it was found that initially assessee purchased 200 shares of M/s Baviscon Vincom Private limited at the rate of Rs. 1000 per share on 22/06/2011 and paid Rs. 2 Lacs for acquisition of shares on 7th of March 2012. Subsequently the company M/s Baviscon Vincom Private limited was allotted bonus shares to its shareholders in the ratio of 79:1 on 23/03/2012 and accordingly the assessee got 15,800 more shares of M/s Baviscon Vincom Private Limited and the total number of shares in the possession of the assessee had become 16,000 shares. After amalgamation order passed by the Hon'ble Mumb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eased by leaps and bounds in short span of time; that the investigation Department had listed the companies name as accommodation entry provider; that the test of human probabilities is not satisfied in this matter; and that since it is considered to be a sham transaction, exemption under section 10(38) of the Act shall not be granted. 6. The assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal challenging the impugned order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in referring to the statements of Mr Pawan Dalmia and Mr Alok without furnishing a copy thereof to the assessee and without affording him an opportunity to cross examine them. Secondly it is stated that the shares of M/s Unno industries Ltd listed at Bombay stock exchange, the purchase and shares were through the broker M/s Rudra shares and Stockbrokers Ltd and the money is processed through banking channels. Further, there is no allegation of manipulation by either SEBI or BSE and the documentation is proper. 7. Secondly, it is submitted that the shares are purchased and sold through the share broker and the money was paid and received through banking channels. IN the circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Religare Securities Ltd on 10/09/2012, the amalgamation took place on 30th March 2013 pursuant to the orders dated 18/01/2013 issued by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, and the assessee sold them away on 18thAugust 2014 and 19th December 2014 after holding them for a period of more than 12 months. The dematerialisation request form incorporated at page No. 57 of the paper book shows that the request was made by the assessee on 10/09/2012 to dematerialise the shares that were enclosed, to their account. The statement of transactions for the period between 1st of December 2013 and 31st of December 2013 incorporated at page No. 53 of the paper book maintained by M/s. Religare Securities Ltd clearly show that during that period the assessee held 1,60,000 shares of Unno industries Ltd and their value was Rs. 58,80,000/-. Further the share transfer advice dated 23rd of February 2012 issued by the M/s Baviscon Vincom Private Limited, the copy of which is incorporated at page No. 58 of the paper book shows that 200 shares were returned after registering them in the name of the assessee and it also took place on 22nd February 2012. The confirmation of accounts dated 27th March 2012 issued by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SEBI or BSE. 12. In the case of Anjali Pandit vs. ACIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai-Trib), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal held that when all the transactions of purchases and sales of shares were evidenced and supported with bills and vouchers of the brokers and confirmations from the brokers, acknowledgement of payments and receiving the sale proceeds by account payee cheques, in the absence of any evidence on record to prove or rebut the evidences produced by the assessee, the transactions have to be considered as a genuine and addition made under section 68 has to be deleted. 13. In the case of Ms Ferreh Marker vs. ITO (ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011) it was held that the long term capital gains on the sale of "Penny" stocks cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained cash credit if the documentation is in order and there is no allegation of manipulation by SEBI or BSE and the denial of right of cross-examination is a factual flower which renders the assessment order a nullity. 14. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Rungta Properties Private limited (2017) 83 taxman.com 106 (Calcutta) held that when the AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documen....