TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The AO was of the opinion that huge rise in the shares of M/s. SESL was not real and it is a stage managed, pre-arranged transaction wherein the assessee's own money has been converted/laundered through the use of a syndicate/racket which sells the scrips of M/s. SESL for a very low price and after twelve months rigs/artificially inflated the price wherein pre-arranged companies with whom assessee's cash is delivered, purchases the shares of M/s. SESL of a very high price, thus the assessee earns huge LTCG which the assessee later claims to be exempt income. According to AO, the modus operandi as suggested above has been revealed after in depth study by the Investigation Wing of the Department as well as by other agencies like SEBI etc. However, in para 11.3 of the assessment order, the AO clarifies after referring to the cash trail which happened in such modus operandi in earlier paras and AO acknowledges "that the said displayed cash trail does not pertain this particular case" and he also states that it is not an easy task to form the trail of the cash movement in each and every case. Thereafter, even though the assessee filed various details/document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts and circumstances of the case. I note that the assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s. SESL @ Rs. 59.75 per share on 21.03.2013 through her broker M/s. Eureka Stock & Share Broking Services Ltd. All these 5000 shares were sold by the assessee on two different dates at lots of 2500 each on 27.05.2014 @ Rs. 249/- per share and on 29.05.2014 @ 246/- per share with gross cost of Rs. 12,37,500/-. In order to justify the claim the Ld. AR drew my attention to the contract note No. 101690 and settlement no.R-1213248 dated 21.03.2013 which is placed at page 2 of the paper book from where I note that the assessee had purchased 5000 shares @ Rs. 59.75 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,98,750.00 through M/s. Eureka Stock & Share Broking Services Ltd. Thereafter, I note that the amount has been paid through bank which is revealed on a perusal of the bank statement placed at page 3 of the paper book. I also note from pages 4 to 5 of the paper book the de mat statement showing 5000 shares of M/s. SESL transferred to the National Security Depository Ltd. Page 6 of the paper book reveals the de mat holding statement of 5000 shares in M/s. SESL. Page 7 of the paper book is broker's le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the authorities below and direct the AO to allow the claim of LTCG of the assessee. 7. For taking such a course of action we take note of certain judicial decisions on similar facts:- 8. The case of the assessee's is similar to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in CIT vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal & Ors. dated 23rd September, 2010 reported in (2010) 328 ITR 656 wherein it was held that: "The fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of similar companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary ITA Nos. 93 to 99/RPR/2014 & C.O. Nos. 12 to 18/RPR/2014 . A.Y. 2004-05 10 produced to establish the genuineness of the claim. From the documents produced, it is seen that the shares in question were in fact purchased by the assessees on the respective dates and the company has confirmed to have handed over the shares purchased by the assessees. Similarly, the sale of the shares to the respective buyers is also established by producing documentary evidence. It is true that some of the transactions were off-market transactions. However, the purchase and sale price....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce sheet as on 31st March, 2003, sale bill, bank account, demat account and official report and quotations, of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. on 23rd July, 2003. Therefore, 'the prese/itdppeal does not raise any question of law, much less any substantial question of law." 9. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 0179 has held as under:- "The Tribunal on the basis of the material on record, held that purchase contract note, contract note for sates, distinctive numbers of shares purchased and sold, copy of share certificates and the quotation of shares on the date of purchase and sale were sufficient material to show that the transaction was not bogus but a genuine transaction. The purchase of shares was made on 28th April, 1993 i.e.. asst. yr. 1993-94 and that assessment was accepted by the Department and there was no challenge to the purchase of shares in that year. It was also placed before the relevant AO as well as before the Tribunal that the sale proceeds have been accounted for in the accounts of the assessee and were received through account payee cheque. The Tribunal was right in rejecting the appeal of the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the ex factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioners orders." 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransferred in the name of the assessee. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the shares were never with the assessee. On the contrary, the shares were thereafter transferred to demat account. The demat account was in the name of the assessee, from where the shares were sold. In our understanding of the facts, if the shares were of some fictitious company which was not listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange/National Stock Exchange, the shares could never have been transferred to demat account. Shri Mukesh Choksi may have been providing accommodation entries to various persons but so far as the facts of the case in hand suggest that the transactions were genuine and therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn. 18. In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and considering the facts in totality, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker's contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking chan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which are placed on pages 28 to 69 of the paper book. The purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of the paper book which is placed at pages 76 to 87. The Board resolution passed by the company for the transactions in commodity was placed at page 88 of the paper book. On the other hand the ld. DR relied in the order of the lower authorities. 4.1 From the aforesaid discussion we find that the assessee has incurred losses from the off market commodity transactions and the AO held such loss as bogus and inadmissible in the eyes of the law. The same loss was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). However we find that all the transactions through the broker were duly recorded in the books of the assessee. The broker has also declared in its books of accounts and offered for taxation. In our view to hold a transaction as bogus, there has to be some concrete evidence where the transactions cannot be proved with the supportive evidence." ii) 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the sale of shares by the Assessee were not genuine. vii) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22 of 2009 dated 29.4.2009] - In this case the Assessee claimed exemption of income from Long Term Capital 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. 12. We note that since 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising inference of that fact. The Hon'ble Apex 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) 14. Moreover it was submitted before us by ld AR 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 CSE. The ld AR referred to the following judgments in support of this contention wherein under similar....