TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue in both the appeals are against the action of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of exemptions claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act. The ld.A.R placed before us the written submissions in these appeals as follows:- "1. Off Market Purchase of shares is not illegal. The said proposition is affirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Shri.Mukesh Ratilal Marolia. (Copy attached) 2. The transaction of purchase was off market and through proper banking channels while the sale transaction was only through online medium of stock exchange and payments were made only through account payee cheques and reflected in the books of accounts. 3. Although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the Assessee to hold that the Assessee was a beneficiary to the modus operandi adopted by different entities/ brokers / entry operators. 4. No evidence was submitted by the AO to prove that there is any allegation in orders of SEBI and/or the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing to the effect that the Assessee and/or his broker was a party to the price rigging or manipulation of price in BSE. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t persons other than the assessee. Assessee places reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Laxman Industrial Resources (Copy attached) 13. The Assessee further relies on the Judgment of The Apex Court in the case of TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA in support of the submission that no addition can be made under section 68 when the person through whom the shares were purchased are identifiable and the transaction of sale of shares and its genuiness cannot be disputed in the light of the fact that the sale of shares were through online medium and by payment of STT. The Assessee having satisfied all three conditions of identifying the seller, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness since the same is covered by payment of STT and contract note, the onus is on the department to prove the transaction otherwise not by using any generalised enquiry but on the basis of specific instance of the Assessee. 14. If the learned Assessing officer is relying on any statement obtained from any person which is used against the assesse than principle of natural justice demands that the assesse should be provided with the copy of the same and also s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee? To whom were the shares sold during the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12? When were the cheques received by the assessee? From whom did the assessee received the cheques? Was there any cash deposit immediately prior to the issuing of the cheque from the bank account of the purchaser of the shares of the assessee? 11. A perusal of the Assessment Order at Para No.7.1 shows that in the Written Submissions, the assessee states that he has purchased 15000 shares of M/s.BPL from M/s.ABPL, Kolkata. However, in Para No.8.3, it is mentioned that the assessee in good faith has purchased the shares of M/s.BPL from a sub-broker in his friends circle. What is the true nature of the transaction? From whom did the assessee actually purchase the shares? Did the assessee take possession of the shares in its physical form? In Para No.8.1 of the Assessment Order, it is mentioned that the assessee is an investor and has been regularly trading in shares. If this is so, does the demat account show such transactions being done by the assessee or is this the only one of transaction. Thus, clearly the facts required for adjudicating the appeals are not forthcoming. There is no evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pr.CIT Vs. M/s.Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., in ITA No.169/2017, C.M.APPL.7385/2017 vide order dated 14.03.2017 has held the issue in favour of the assessee. The ld.A.R also placed before us the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Aravind Nandlal Khatri Vs. Income Tax Officer, in ITA No.2035/Chny/2038 for assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 03.12.2018 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held as follows:- "5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold the said shares and claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act during the year wider consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the source for investment. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of exemption on the ground that the investment was in a penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a ....