AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upholding the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in respect of sale proceeds of shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL) treating the same as income from undisclosed sources after rejecting the assessee's claim of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) u/s. 10(38) of the Act on sale of those shares, we dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience by taking the appeal for AY 2014-15 in I.T.A. No. 819/Kol/2018 in the case of Shri Vipul Patel as the lead case and the result of which will be following for other cases also [However, relevant factual finding of each appeal will be discussed separately infra]. 2. The assessee's [Shri Vipul Patel] sole ground of appeal is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CITA was justified in upholding the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in respect of sale proceeds of shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL) treating the same as income from undisclosed sources after rejecting the assessee's claim of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) u/s. 10(38) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was bogus in nature. The AO further alleged that the transactions in the scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) were being manipulated by entry operators and the share prices were hiked artificially to earn LTCG. So, the AO did not accept the assessee's claim of LTCG and exemption thereof claimed by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO treated the same as cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the entire LTCG to the income of the assessee as unexplained income. On first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee against his claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and he also confirmed the additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had purchased 1,10,000 numbers of shares of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Pvt. Ltd. on 16.08.2012 at a total cost of Rs. 1,10,000/- from M/s. Shivsakti Exports Pvt. Ltd. The payment according to him was made through an account payee cheque. Then M/s. Panchshul Marketing Pvt. Ltd was merged with M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. Thereafter, in the relevant year, the assessee sold th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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) Delhi High Court in CIT vs Rajesh Kumar (2008) 306 ITR 27 (ix) CIT vs. Carbo Industries Holdings Ltd. 244 ITR 422 (Cal) (x) CIT vs. Emerald Commercial Ltd. 250 ITR 539 (Cal) (xi) Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, order dated 18.08.2017; ITANo. 1236-1237/K/17 (xii) Vasudha Jain vs. ITO, ITA No. 10181K/2018, order dated 15.02.2019 (xiii) Prakasho Devi Saria vs. ITO, ITA No. 23601K/2017, order dated 17.05.2019 (xiv) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal (Calcutta High Court); ITA No.22 of 2009, dated 29.04.09. Further the ld AR countering the observation of AO that the company in question had insignif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Binod Chand Jain in Tax Appeal No.18 of 2017 does not want me to interfere. He also contented that in this case purchase of the stock of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. was not an investment decision. According to him, the assessee never came out with any explanation as to why he choose to purchase this company's share in large number and how that company was an investment destination. The behavior according to ld DR exposes the intention of the assessee from the decision of his purchase and the sequence of events that followed till its sale clearly shows that it was not an investment decision. Rather, assessee's behaviour shows that such transaction was entered into with a pre-planned and pre-arranged manner where assessee was over confident about making huge gain for certain reason which assessee never disclosed. According to ld DR, the fantastic rate of return from such transaction within the shortest period of time to ensure the gain as LTCG was just unbelievable, and same thing hardly happens in reality on a single attempt. So this activity was beyond any human logic and possible. He also contended that in the instant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... LTCG claim of the assessee needs to be allowed: i) Manish Kumar Baid Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 1236& 1237/Kol/2017 dated 18.08.2017 ii) Rukmini Devi Manpria Vs. DCIT, ITA No.1724/Kol/2017 dated 24.10.2018 iii) Jagmohan Agarwal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.604/Kol/2018 dated 05.09.2018. It was also brought to my notice that in this appeal, the facts was that the assessee an individual had purchased 1,10,000 equity shares of M/s Panchshul Marketing Ltd. on 16.08.2012 from M/s. Shivsakti Exports Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd. was merged with M/s. KAFL and there was change of management and control of M/s. KAFL Ltd. pursuant to scheme to arrangement sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad. It is noted that the purchase of aforesaid 1,10,000 equity of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd. was made by account payee cheque of Dena Bank, vide cheque No. 940155. It was also brought to my notice that shares of M/s. KAFL were allotted to the assessee upon merger of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd. with M/s. KAFL pursuant to sanction of scheme of arrangement by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and 1,10000 equity shares were allotted to the assessee in lieu of shareholding in Panchshul Marketi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and merely relied on the orders of the lower authorities apart from placing the copy of SEBI's interim order supra. We find that the SEBI's orders relied on by the ld AO and referred to him as direct evidence against the assessee did not contain the name of the assessee and/or the name of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. through whom the assessee sold the shares of KAFL as a beneficiary to the alleged accommodation entries provided by the related entities / promoters / brokers / entry operators. In the instant case, the shares of CPAL were purchased by the assessee way back on 20.12.2011 and pursuant to merger of CPAL with KAFL, the assessee was allotted equal number of shares in KAFL, which was sold by the assessee by exiting at the most opportune moment by making good profits in roder to have a good return on his investment. We find that the assessee and / or the broker Ashita Stock Broking Ltd was not the primary allottees of shares either in CPAL or in KAFL as could be evident from the SEBI's order. We find that the SEBI order did mention the list of 246 beneficiaries of persons trading in shares of KAFL, wherein, the assessee and / or Ashita Stock Broking Ltd's name is not reflected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bank, vide cheque No. 940155. It is also noted that shares of M/s. KAFL were allotted to the assessee upon merger of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd. with M/s. KAFL pursuant to sanction of scheme of arrangement by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and 1,10000 equity shares were allotted to the assessee in lieu of shareholding in Panchshul Marketing Ltd. It is clarified that off market transaction has not been prohibited and if carried out legally cannot be held to be bogus only on this count. It is further noted that 96,001 shares were later sold at a price of Rs. 43,41,314/- in the Stock Exchange of Bombay, through SEBI registered stock broker Kotak Securities Pvt. Ltd. whose SEBI Regd. No. IN300214 vide contract notes issued regarding sale of equity shares of M/.s. KAFL, which assessee claimed to have resulted in Long Term Capital Gains and after remitting STT on the transaction, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs. 43,41,314/-. It is noted that the assessee has paid the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- through account payee cheque to M/s. Shivsakti Export Pvt. Ltd (purchase bill available at paper book pages 9 and copy of Bank statement showing payments made for purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding the selling broker does not even know who is the purchasing broker. This is how the SEBI keeps a strict control over the transactions taken place in recognized stock exchanges. Unless there is a evidence to show that there is a breach in the aforesaid process which fact has been unearthed by meticulous investigation, I am of the opinion that the unscrupulous actions of few players exploiting the loopholes of the Stock Exchange, if any, cannot be the basis to paint the entire sale/purchase of a scrip like that of M/s. KAFL as bogus without bringing out adverse material specifically against the assessee. 10. The fact of holding the shares in the D-mat account cannot be disputed. Further, the Assessing Officer has not even disputed the existence of the D-mat account and shares credited in the D-mat account of the assessee. Therefore, once, the holding of shares is Dmat account cannot be disputed, then the transaction cannot be held as bogus. The AO has not disputed the sale of shares from the D-mat account of the assessee and the sale consideration was directly credited to the bank account of the assessee, therefore, once the assessee produced all relevant evidence to substant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the employee of the Company does not implicate that the entire premium collected all throughout the country and deposited in Benami bank accounts actually belongs to the assessee-company or the assessee-company had direct control on these bank accounts. Ultimately, the entire case of the revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so-called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that GTC actually had some kind of a share in such secret money. It is quite a trite law that suspicion howsoever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition except for some material evidence on record. The theory of 'preponderance of probability' is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side. The conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and materials and not on the basis of presumption of facts that might go against assessee. Once nothing has been proved against the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments appear to be genuine transactions. The AO has discussed modus operandi in some sham transactions which were detected in the search case of B.C. Purohit Group. The AO has also stated in the assessment order itself while discussing the modus operandi that accommodation entries of long term capital gain were purchased as long term capital gain either was exempted from tax or was taxable at a lower rate. As the appellant's case is of short term capital gain, it does not exactly fall under that category of accommodation transactions. Further as per the report of DCIT, Central Circle-3 Sh. P.K. Agarwal was found to be an entry provider as stated by Sh. Pawan Purohit of B.C. Purihit and Co. group. The AR made submission before the AO that the fact was not correct as in the statement of Sh. Pawan Purohit there is no mention of Sh. P. K. Agarwal. It was also submitted that there was no mention of Sh. P. K. Agarwal in the order of Settlement Commission in the case of Sh. Sushil Kumar Purohit. Copy of the order of settlement commission was submitted. The AO has failed to counter the objections raised by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Simply mentioning that these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... activity to launder his own money in the guise of LTCG. 15. There is also nothing on record which could suggest that the assessee gave his own cash and got cheque from the alleged brokers/buyers. The assessment refers also to some third party statement of Shri Sunil Dokania which was admittedly recorded behind the back of the assessee and the assessee has neither been allowed to cross examine this person by the assessee nor the statement of Shri Sunil Dokania furnished to assessee, so the statements even if adverse against the assessee cannot be relied upon by the AO to draw adverse inference against the assessee (Reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Andaman Timber (supra) and in the light of the documents to substantiate the claim of LTCG, which has not been found fault with by the AO. 16. Let us look at certain judicial decisions on similar facts:- 17. 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 companie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'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 substantial question of law." 18. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r:- "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:- "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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust be held that there is no substantial question of law in the present appeal. 6. Question (iv) has been dealt with in detail by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Firstly, the documents on which the AD relied upon the appeal were not put to the Assessee during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) nevertheless considered them in detail and found that there was no co-relation between the amounts sought to be added and the entries in those documents. This was on an appreciation of facts. There is nothing to indicate that the same was perverse or irrational. Accordingly, no question of law arises. 7. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed." 7. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above and respectfully following the precedent, as aforesaid, the addition amounting Rs. 18,46,600/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted and ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 21. I note that the Ld. DR had relied on 23 judicial pronouncements in support of its case of treatment of the transactions in shares and securities, which resulted in STCL, LTCG etc. as bogu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT, Order dated 10.04.2017 (Bom.), being judgment of Jurisdictional High Court. However, in this case, the AO observed that the assessee had taken entries and paid 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 Class....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gments while allowing similar issue in favour of the Assessee: a. DCIT vs. Anil Kainya [ ITA 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 of fact that the transaction of sale and pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 opportunity has not been given by AO during assessment stage and that is not the case here in the case in hand. 10. Coming to the follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness 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 while deciding similar issue in favour of an assessee in the case of Kaushalya Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITA No. 194/Kol/2018, order dated 03.06.2019 (ITAT, Kol). More particularly, the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain V. PCIUT, order dated 10.04.2017 (Bom HC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid 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, Order dated 05.10.2018. x. Taruna Devi Barmecha v. ITO in ITA No.1199/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xi. Premlata Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No.874/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xii. Sunil Kumar Ladha vs. ITO in ITA No.851/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xiii. Balram Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No.817/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xiv. Alka Changoiwala vs. ITO in ITA No.634/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t statement found placed at pages 12 to 14 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 8 and 11 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 25. In respect of Smt. Krishna Devi Mundhra Vs. ITO in ITA No.2356/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate has taken me through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 13 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 40,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 6 to 7 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 15 to 18 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 8 and 14 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 26. In the case of Smt. Saroj Devi Mundhra Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2355/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took me through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 10 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 40,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 6 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 1,00,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 10 to 12 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 8,9 & 16 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 7 & 17 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 31. In the case of Shri Sailesh Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1748/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 4 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 25,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 7 to 11 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 17 to 20 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 5,12 and 13 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have pass....