TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee filed copy of contract notes in support of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. SRK on which LTCG was claimed. From the details/evidences the AO found that 5994 shares of the company was purchased for Rs. 13,500/- on 08.08.2012 and just after completion of one year, it was sold for Rs. 10,82,212/- on 25.10.2013 and 11.11.2013. Thus according to AO the assessee has managed an increase in profit of almost 7916% in a short span of time of 14-16 months and that too when the general market trend was recessive during the relevant period of time. Therefore, the AO was of the opinion that the prices was jacket up/rigged purposefully and the sales were all pre-arranged and stage managed by players who were running it as a racket to launder the ill gotten money of the assessee through such nefarious activities. So, he added the entire amount of Rs.,10,68,061/- u/s. 68 of the Act and also made an addition of Rs. 5340/- as commission of LTCG. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) brought to our notice that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igging and price manipulations does not arise. According to him, there is no material evidence for the A.O. to conclude what is apparent is not real. In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the Departments conjectures. Blaming the assessee by vague observations and drawing an adverse inference without any admissible evidence on record, on the part of the lower authorities is not justified in the eyes of law. In this connection, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); ii) CIT (Central) Calcutta vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349) iii) Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE - [2015J 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (iv) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income-Tax and Sales Tax Officer And Others 209 ITR 821 (Ker.) (v) CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises 210 ITR 103 (Cal) (vi) Asst. CIT vs Ajnara India Ltd (2011) 49 DTR 273 (Del-Trib) (vii) Calcutta High Court in S.K.Bothra & Sons (HUF) vs ITO (2011) 62 DTR (Cal)234 (viii) D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Vivek Jhunjhunwala Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2333/Kol/2018 for AY 2014-15. Therefore, he humbly prayed before the bench that the appeal of the assessee may please be allowed. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and AO and according to him, the investigation report of department has shown that assessees were indulging in their illegal activities to launder their ill gotten unaccounted money. And these, according to him, are stage managed, pre-arranged, rigged transaction, which is beyond human probabilities and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High court of Bombay order in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. Pr. CIT, Nagpur dated 10.04.2017 and CIT Vs. Independent Media (P) Ltd. and Smt. M. K. Rajeshwar Vs. ITO (Bangalore ITAT) dated 12.10.2018 and the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT dated 16.09.2014 and wants us to confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) and does not want us to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and cited few more cases which I will deal with infra. 6. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the facts and material available on record, it is noted that the assessee had purchased 1350 numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of sale of shares, copy of demat statement etc. which are available at paper book pages 12 to 23 to support his claim. The AO has heavily relied on the modus operandi which has been brought out by the Investigation Wing of the Department and some SEBI studies. I find that there is no evidence/material to suggest that the aforesaid documents filed by the assessee are false or fabricated. All the transactions of purchase and sale have happened through stock exchange through online platform and through banking channel at the prices quoted at BSE on the date of purchase/sale of scrips. The shares were held in demat account for more than a year, therefore, without any material to suggest that the assessee/broker had indulged in any activity like stage managed and/or pre-arranged as suggested by the AO, it cannot be held that the assessee's LTCG claim is bogus. Therefore, we overturn the decision of the authorities below and direct the AO to allow the claim of LTCG of the assessee. 9. For coming to aforesaid conclusion I rely on certain judicial decisions on similar facts:- 10. The case of the assessee's is similar to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal.-Asstt. CIT vs. Kamal Kumar S. Agrawal (Indl.) & Ors. (2010) 41 DTR (Nag) (Trib) 105: (2010) 133 TTJ (Nag) 818 affirmed; Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124: (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC) distinguished." 12. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in CIT vs. Smt. Pushpa Malpani - reported in (2011) 242 CTR (Raj.) 559; (2011) 49 DTR 312 dismissed the appeal of department observing 'Whether or not there was sale of shares and receipt of consideration thereof on appreciated value is essentially a question of fact. CIT(A) and Tribunal have both given reasons in support of their findings and have found that at the time of transactions, the broker in question was not banned by SEBI and that assessee had produced copies of purchase bills, contract number share certificate, application for transfer of share certificate to demat account along with copies of holding statement in demat account, balance 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the assessment was framed on the strength of the statement of a broker. The relevant part reads as under:- "14. The entire assessment is based upon the statement of Shri Mukesh Choksi. It is an undisputed fact that neither a copy of the statement was supplied to the assessee nor any opportunity of cross-examination was given by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 was seized with the following action of the Tribunal:- "6. The plea of no cross examination granted to the various dealers would not help the appellant case since the examination of the dealers would not bring out any material which would not be in the possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex factory prices remain static. Since we are not upholding and applying 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:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show Cause. We, thus, set aside the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal and allow this appeal." 16. On the strength of the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessment order has to be quashed. 17. Even on facts of the case, the orders of the authorities below cannot be accepted. There is no denying that consideration was paid when the shares were purchased. The shares were thereafter sent to the company for the transfer of name. The company transferred the shares in the name of the assessee. There is nothing on record which could suggest that the shares were never transferred 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 wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court:- (i) The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs M/S. Blb Cables And Conductors; ITAT No.78 of 2017, GA No.747 of 2017; dt. 19 June, 2018, had upheld the order of the Tribunal by observing as follows:- "4. We have heard both the side and perused the materials available on record. The ld. AR submitted two papers books. First book is running in pages no. 1 to 88 and 2nd paper book is running in pages 1 to 34. Before us the ld. AR submitted that the order of the AO is silent about the date from which the broker was expelled. There is no law that the off market transactions should be informed to stock exchange. All the transactions are duly recorded in the accounts of both the parties and supported with the account payee cheques. The ld. AR has also submitted the IT return, ledger copy, letter to AO land PAN of the broker in support of his claim which is placed at pages 72 to 75 of the paper book. The ld. AR produced the purchase & sale contracts notes which are placed on pages 28 to 69 of the paper book. The purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax, and cess. There is no iota of evidence over the transactions as it were reflected in demat account. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. v) CIT V. Rungta Properties Private Limited [ITA No. 105 of 2016] (Cal HC) - In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this tribunal , wherein, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee where the AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee in respect of his transactions in alleged penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the AO disallowed the loss on trading of penny stock on the basis of some information received by him. However, it was also found that the AO did not doubt the genuineness of the documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the AO's conclusions are merely based on the information received by him. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. vi) CIT V. Andaman Timbers Industries Limited [ITA No. 721 of 2008] (Cal HC) - In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this Tribunal wherein the loss suffered by the Assessee was allowed since the AO failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HC) (xiii) CIT vs. Himani M. Vakil - [2014] 41 taxmann.com 425 (Gujarat HC) (xiv) CIT vs. Maheshchandra G. Vakil - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 326 (Gujarat HC) (xv) CIT vs. Sumitra Devi [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 37 (Rajasthan HC) (xvi) Ganeshmull Bijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT - ITA Nos. 544/Kol/2013 (Kolkata ITAT) (xvii) Meena Devi Gupta & Others vs. ACIT - ITA Nos. 4512 & 4513/Ahd/2007 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (xviii) Manish Kumar Baid ITA 1236/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT) (xix) Mahendra Kumar Baid ITA 1237/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT) 15. The ld AR also brought to our notice that once the assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the genuineness of the transactions, the onus to disprove the same is on revenue. He referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] 1 SCC 816 (SC). In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and the burden has to be strictly discharged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit earned by the assessee was shown as capital gains which was not accepted by the A.O. and the gains were treated as business profit of the assessee by treating the sales of the shares within the ambit of adventure in nature of trade. Thus, it can be seen that in the decision relied upon by the ld. DR, the dispute was whether the profit earned on sale of shares was capital gains or business profit. 18. It is clear from the above that the facts of the case of the assessee are similar with the facts of the cases discussed supra wherein the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has deleted the addition and allowed the claim of LTCG. We, therefore, respectfully following the same ratio, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO not to treat the long term capital gain and short term capital loss as bogus and to allow the same and so, delete the consequential addition. 19. Before I part, the judicial pronouncements cited by the Ld. DR in his support. I note that the said judicial pronouncements are all distinguishable on facts as well as on law. The said decisions are dealt with herein below in seriatim as under: 1. Ratnakar M. Pujari vs. Assessee -ITA No.995/Mum/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash of equivalent amount and received back by cheque. And on the basis of such adverse inference, the Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO. However, in the present case in hand, there is no such finding made by the AO. Further. It is noted that the abovementioned judgment of ITAT, Mumbai Bench has been considered and distinguished by the ITAT, Kolkata Benches and other Benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/KoIl2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/KoIl2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) Reference is also made to the recent judgment dated 01.07.2019 rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Aparna Misra Vs. ITO (ITA No. 161/Kol/2019) wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the following jurisdictional Calcutta High Court judgments to decide similar issue in favour of the assessee. i) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] ii) CIT vs. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Limited [2013] 40 taxmann.com 439 (Cal) iii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nos.4077 & 4078/MUM/2013, Order dt. 22.03.16 Mum ITAT)] b. Anjali Pandit vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai - Trib.) Further, it is noted that lthe said judgment has been considered/distinguished by the Kolkata and other Benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases while allowing similar issue in favour of the assessee. a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Anupama Garg vs. ITO [ITA NO.5971/0el/2018, Order dt. 12.12.2018 (Del, ITAT)] c. Radhika Garg. vs. ITO [ITA No.4738/0el/2018, Order dt. 01.01.2019 (Del-Trib) 4. Coming to the case of Vidya Reddy - ITA No.126/Chny/2017 -Chennai ITAT had disallowed the claim of exempt LTCG and had confirmed the addition made on the ground that the assessee has not placed any material before the lower authorities to prove that her transactions are genuine. The Tribunal observed "She has also not placed any material to prove that her claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) is genuine and valid." However, in the case of the assessee company all relevant documents were furnished to support purchases as well as sale of shares. Further, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. ACIT [ITA No.113/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (KoI ITAT)] c. Navin Kumar Kajaria vs. ACIT [ITA No.1254-55/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.04.2019 (Kol- Trib) d. Soumitra Choudhury vs. ACIT [ITA No.256/Kol/2019, Order dt. 15.03.2019 (Kol ITAT)] 6. Coming to the case of Abhimanyu Soin [2018-TIOL-733-ITAT-CHD - The Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal had confirmed the addition made by AO after observing that "11. The assessee has failed to prove that the purchase and sale transactions are genuine and could not even furnish and iota of evidence regarding the sale of shares .............". However, in the case of the Assessee Company all relevant documents were furnished to support, and prove beyond all doubts, purchases and as well as sale of shares, which was evidently absent in that case, so is not applicable to case in hand. 7. Coming to the case of Balbir Chand Maini Vs. CIT (2011) 12 taxmann.com 276 (P&H) - The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer on the basis of finding of fact by the Tribunal: "10. The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue against the assessee had recorded a finding o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT)] b. Kamal Singh Kundalia vs. ITO [ITA No.2359/Kol/2017, Order dt. 08.05.2019 (Kol ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 9. Coming to the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda (Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 06.06.2018), it is noted that this judgment relied upon by the department has no application in the facts of the instant case. The contention of Ld. DR that matter should be set aside to AO for supplying the Assessee with Investigation Wing Report and statements of parties relied upon cannot be applied in each and every case. The assessee company had in the case in hand discharged the onus casted upon it to prove the claim of LTCG/STCL, then it was the bounden duty of the AO to bring out the falsity/fabrication/wrong doing if any on the part of assessee or confront the assessee with any material which is adverse against the assessee and to proceed in accordance to law i.e. in confronting with principle of Natural Justice without doing so, and when assessee placed all documentary evidences before the AO/Ld. CIT(A), the assessee cannot be again sent back before AO and the decision to send back to AO is decided when proper o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Prem Jain vs. ITO [ITAT, Delhi, Order dt. 22.03.2018] Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. PCIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bom) The decisions of these cases had been relied upon by D/R to contend that gains from sale of shares should be assessed as "Business income" and not under the head "Capital Gains". It is noted that the Learned D/R is trying to put forward a completely new argument which do not emanate out of the orders of the lower authorities and also from the records of the case and thus is not permissible to be raised as this stage. Even otherwise, the ITAT, Delhi Bench in Prem Jain (supra) had held when the facts of the case was that the Assessee had claimed the income from sale of shares to be assessed at business profits and not capital gains where there was short duration of holding of shares and lack of clarity in account books, sale and purchase of shares. In such facts of the case, it was held that profits from sale of shares would amount to business income and not short term capital gain. However, no such case had been made out by the Assessing Officer in the instant cases. The aforesaid order has been considered by this Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of brokers as there was no evidence on record to show involvement of the said brokers. Similarly in the instant cases the department had failed to bring on record any evidence whatsoever to show that the Assessee was involved in any price manipulations. Thus the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly distinguishable on facts. The said judgment had been held to be distinguishable by the ITAT, Kolkata Benches in the following judgments:- i. Suman Saraf v. ITO in ITA No.1395/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. ii. Jignesh Desai v. ITO in ITA No.1394/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. iii. Rishab Jain v. ITO in ITA No.1392/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. iv. Rekha Devi v. ITO in ITA NO.1269/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. v. Sunita Devi v. ITO in ITA No. 1268/Ko1/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. vi. Jagat Lal Jain v.ITO in ITA No.1226/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. vii. Sneha Choudhary v. ITO in ITA NO.1218/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. viii. U.C.Choudhary & Ors (HUF) v. ITO in ITA No.1217/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. ix. Virendara Barmecha v. ITO in ITA No.1201/KoI/2018, Ord....