TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ites our attention to a voluminous exercise undertaken by the Assessing Officer involving a long drawn process of stock market prices rigging in collusion with various entry operators. He takes us to CIT(A)'s detailed discussion whilst treating the impugned LTCG in the instant case as under:- "5.3 In a penny stock which has no business activity or any plan or initiative or any prospect for growth, investor normally sell off such stock whenever price has appreciated to some extent and there is total uncertainty to hold such stock for fabulous appreciation when the investment is not backed by any fundamental of the company, its business policy and future prospect. In absence of any such fact the person who knows beforehand that its price is being manipulated in a concerted way and he is part of such system will benefit. Price movement and volume movement of this stock indicates such fact. The said transaction defies all logic of human probability. In this context the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) has held that the surrounding circumstances muss be seen to find out the reality of the recitals made in the documents. This princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough any stock exchange - On scrutiny of books of account of broker, it was found that there were cash deposits in its hank account preceding issue of cheques in name of assessee for purchase of shares claimed to be sale proceeds. of same shares received in advance - Broker could not give details of purchaser of shares - Moreover, shares claimed to have been sold through broker had not been transferred even at time of making enquiry by Assessing Officer and same continued to be registered in name of assessee - In those circumstances, Assessing Officer held that transaction of sale of shares was an ingenuine transaction and made addition of alleged sale consideration to assessee's income as income from undisclosed sources - Whether on facts, addition made by Assessing Officer was justified - Held, yes 3. Usha Chandresb Shah vs. ITO (2014-TIOL-1459-ITAT-Mum) Where the assessee could not produce the copies of share certificates and copies of share transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of company was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valent practice in the country through which unaccounted money is converted into long-term capital gain by circuitous means. While dealing with the issue of long-term capital gain accrued to the assessee in short span, one has to examine the financials of the company whose shares were inflated within a short period and after the sharp rise in the price of shares it again comes down. In the instant case, financials were examined by us and we find that the financial worth of the company is meagre and not at all worth to be invested therein. With such financials, we are unable to understand how there can be manifold increase in the shares. In the light of the duration of transactions and the financials ()J the company whose shares were transacted, we find that the Revenue has brought sufficient material on record to demonstrate that unaccounted money was introduced in the books of account through long-term capital gain by adopting such method. Whatever judicial pronouncements are relied on, these are m those cases where the transactions are genuine. Under these circumstances. we are of the view that Revenue authorities have rightly adjudicated the issue and no interference is called f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arwal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Pune dated 04.01.2019 has held at para 15 & 17 15. It is further pertinent to note that it was not only the assessee who booked short term capital gain on the sale of shares of PIL to the above extent, but his family members were also not left behind. They also indulged in the similar paper transactions by allegedly purchasing and selling shares of PIL from the same brokers and showing huge amounts of short term. capital gains, for which addition of Rs. 18,71,906/ - has been made in the hands of his son Sh. Bharat Rajkumar Aqaruial and Rs. 20,21,OOl/ - in the hands of his wife Ameeta Rajkumar Agarwal for the same assessment year, the appeals of which are being disposed off through this batch of cases. 16. In view of the factual and legal position discussed above, it is crystal clear that PIL is a penny stock company and the assessee obtained only accommodation entries in the garb of short term gain from transfer of shares of PIL, for which an appropriate addition has rightly been made and upheld by the authorities below. We, therefore, countenance the impugned order on this score. 17. Before parting with this issue, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent bogus scripts/ penny stocks which have been used for providing the accommodation. entries of LTCG and LTCL to different beneficiaries using his brokerage company Consortium Capital Pvt. Ltd. and the name of CCL International Limited having scrip name CCL Inter appears in the list whose shares were sold by the assessee and exemption on LTCG amounting to Rs. 22,28,172/- claimed u/ s. 10(38) of the Act. After perusing the records, I find that in the instant case the investment in shares made by the assessee reveals that he has not been dealing in shares on a regular basis and the entries of LTCG have also been taken by other members of the assessee company and the purchase of these shares were claimed to be through off market deals and not through Stock Exchange. The financials of penny stock company M/s CCL International Ltd. and movement of its price are abrupt, unrealistic and based upon any realistic parameters. From, the perusal of financial statements of the aforesaid company M/s CCL International Ltd. From, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, website (MCA) examining the information available in the public domain from where it was observed that there is no extraordinary incr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s mutandis in this appeal also, because the nature of transactions, evidences and documents are exactly the same. Thus, both the appeals are treated as dismissed. 10. In the result, both the Appeals of the different Assessees are dismissed. 10. The latest order dated 08-03-209 passed by the Delhi High Court, New Delhi, ITA No.220/2019 & CM No. 10774/2019, in Udit Karla Vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), dated 08-03-2019. The assessee is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the tax authorities - including the lower appellate authorities rejecting its claim for a long term capital gain reported by it, to the tune of Rs. 13,33,956/- and Rs. 14,34,501/- in respect of 4,000 shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. The assessee held those shares for approximately 19 months; the acquisition price was Rs. 12/ - per share whereas the market price of the shares at the time of their sale, was Rs. 720/-. It is contended that the assessee was not granted fair opportunity. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the orders of the co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal, in respect of the same company i.e. M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd., and pointed out that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lows:- "4. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 5. In identical cases, the submission of the assessee, findings of the Assessing Officer, findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the conclusion of the Tribunal have been brought out as under:- 6. The addition was made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- i. The initial allotment of shares to beneficiaries is generally done through preferential allotment. ii. The market price of shares of these companies rise to very high level within a span of one year. iii. The trading volume of shares during the period, in which manipulations are done to raise the market price, is extremely thin. iv. Most of the purported investors are returned their initial investment amount in cash. Only small amount is retained by the operator as security. Thus, an enquiry would reveal that most of the capital receipts through preferential allotment or other means would have found their way out of system as cash. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....boration. b) There is direct evidence to clearly indicate that the entire transaction undertaken by the assessee was merely an accommodation taken for the purpose of bogus long term capital gains to claim exempt income. The authorities such as SEBI have after investigating such abnormal price increase of certain stocks, suspended certain scrips. c) The submissions of the assessee pointed out towards elaborate documentation such as : i) Application of shares. ii) Allotment of shares. iii) Share Certificates iv) Payment by cheques v) Filings before Registrar of Companies. vi) Proof of amalagamation of companies. vii) Copies of bank statement, viii) Bank contract notes. ix) Delivery instruction to the broker etc. d) The elaborate paper book is filed to strengthen the matter relevant to bogus claim of LTCG, and this is clearly been schemed and pre-planned with mala fide intention. Therefore, all these documents are not evidence. e) The transactions are unnatural and highly suspicious. There are grave doubts in the story propounded by the assessee before the authorities b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observations are general in nature and are applied across the board to all the 60,000 or more assessees who fall in this category. Specific evidences produced by the assessee are not controverted by the revenue authorities. No evidence collected from third parties is confronted to the assessees. No opportunity of crossexamination of persons, on whose statements the revenue relies to make the addition, is provided to the assessee. The addition is made based on a report from the investigation wing. 13. The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG, that have surfaced during investigations, should guide the authorities in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the claim in genuine or not. An alleged scam might have taken place on LTCG etc. But it has to be established in each case, by the party alleging so, that this assessee in question was part of this scam. The chain of events and the live link of the assesee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 16. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. However we do not find that, the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), have brought out any part of the investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibgunj and the notoriety achieved by Dhulian as a great receiving centre for such commodities were merely a background of suspicion and the appellant could not be tarred with the same brush as every arhatdar and grain merchant who might have been indulging in smuggling operations, without an iota of evidence in that behalf. The cancellation of the food grain licence at Nawgachia and the prosecution of the appellant under the Defence of India Rules was also of no consequence inasmuch as the appellant was acquitted of the offence with which it had been charged and its licence also was restored. The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single transaction or in a chain of transactions could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination notes,-- -this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. As regards the disclosed volume of business in the year under consideration in the head office and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC 708; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 876; Rachpal Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2448; Biecco Lawrie and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131). 24. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the Assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice." b) Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II wherein it was held that: "4. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the Assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 5. 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 soug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded 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. Here in the case the transactions of the commodity exchanged have not only been explained but also substantiated from the confirmation of the party. Both the parties are confirming the transactions which have been duly supported with the books of accounts and bank transactions. The ld. AR has also submitted the board resolution for the trading of commodity transaction. The broker was expelled from the commodity exchange cannot be the criteria to hold the transaction as bogus. In view of above, we reverse the order of the lower authorities and allow the common grounds of assessee's appeal." [quoted verbatim] This is essentially a finding of the Tribunal on fact. No material has been shown to us who would negate the Tribunal's finding that off market transactions are not prohibited. As regards veracity of the transactions, the Tribunal has come to its conclusion on analysis of relevant materials. That being the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal. Accordingly, no question of law arises." d) The BENCH "D" OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of GAUTAM PINCHA [ITA No.569/Kol/2017] order dated 15.11.2017 held as under vide Page 12 Para 8.1: "In the light of the documents stated i.e. (I to xiv) in Para 6(supra) we find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to have entered gamut of unfounded/unwarranted allegations leveled by the AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion has no legs to stand and therefore has to fall. We take note that the ld. DR could not controvert the facts supported with material evidences which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. These evidences were neither found by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. It is to be kept in mind that suspicion how so ever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. It further held as follows: "We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered to arrive at our conclusion. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to support the impugned decision of the ld. CIT(A)/AO. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition." f) The BENCH "A" OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of SHALEEN KHEMANI [ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014] order dated 18.10.2017 held as under vide Page 24 Para 9.3: "We therefore hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r relying on the various decision of the coordinate bench, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, issue was decided in favour of the assessee, came to the conclusion that transaction entered by the assessee was genuine. Detailed finding recorded by CIT (A) at para 3 to 5 has not been controverted by the department by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT (A)." h) The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of VIVEK MEHTA [ITA No. 894 OF 2010] order dated 14.11.2011 vide Page 2 Para 3 held as under: "On the basis of the documents produced by the assessee in appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) recorded a finding of fact that there was a genuine transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee on 16.3.2001 and sale thereof on 21.3.2002. The transactions of sale and purchase were as per the valuation prevalent in the Stocks Exchange. Such finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Tribunal has affirmed such finding. Such finding of fact is sought to be disputed in the present appeal. We do not find that the finding of fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equential addition u/s 69C is also deleted. Accordingly both the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 5. This tribunal's yet another recent direction in Mahavir Jhanwar vs. also summaries latest legal developments. More particularly hon'ble Bombay high court's decision in Revenue's favour as follows:- "2. The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and modus operandi adopted generally and on general observations has concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain. He made an addition of the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income and rejected the claim of exemption made u/s 10(38) of the Act. The evidence produced by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transaction was rejected. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon "circumstantial evidence" and "human probabilities" to uphold the findings of the AO. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA No.569/Kol/2017 Gautam Pincha 15.11.2017 6. ITA No.443/KOl/2017 Kiran Kothari HUF 15.11.2017 7. ITA No.2281/Kol/2017 Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO 20.07.2018 8. ITA No.456 of 2007 Bombay High Court CIT vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia 07.09.2011 9. ITA No.95 of 2017 (O&M) PCIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi 18.01.2018 10. ITA No.1089/Kol/2018 Sanjay Mehta 28.09.2018 6. Regarding the case laws relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative, I find that, in the case of M/s. Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF)(supra), the issue was decided against the assessee for the reason that, the assessee could not justify his claim as genuine by producing evidence and was only arguing for the matter to be set aside to the lower authorities on the ground of natural justice. As similar arguments were not raised before the lower authorities by the assessee, the ITAT rejected these arguments. In the case on hand, all evidences were produced by the assessee. In the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain, legal heir of Santi Devi Bimalchand Jain, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the stand of the Revenue that the transaction in question is an adventure in....