TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Brief facts of the case are as under : The assessee has earned LTCG on purchase and sale of shares of Suma Finance and Investment Ltd. The purchase of the shares was effected through shares brokers M/s MKM Finsec Private Limited, a member of Delhi Stock Exchange Association. During the course of investigation by the Investigation Wing of Department at New Delhi it was found that some persons in Delhi were giving accommodation entries to various persons all over the country and some assessees of Nagpur charge had also been taken the benefit of these accommodation entries. The enquiry was completed in the case of this assessee and it revealed that the assessee and others have brought their unaccounted money in their books in the form of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of penny shares by availing the services of entry operators in Delhi. It was further found that the purchase and sale of these shares are not through demat accounts and the brokers through whom the shares were purchased and sold are the very entry operators who are mentioned in the list of the Investigation Wing. During the year under assessment assessee has shown income from capital Gain at Nil as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the company is not in knowledge of the sales made by the shareholdes and that the transactions are also not made through Demat account. The assessee has claimed bank charges of Rs. 3,601/-. On perusal of bank account it was noticed that no such amount is debited in the bank account and the assessee's claim is, accordingly, disallowed. It is further stated that the assessee received sale price of the shares sold by him, on the following dates: Date Particulars Bank name Amount. 06.08.2002 From MKM Finsec Pvt.Ltd. PNB 5,00,000.00 09.08.2002 From SJK CAPITAL PNB 5,98,800.00 09.08.2002 From SJK CAPITAL PNB 3,99,200.00 27.08.2002 From SJK CAPITAL PNB 2,99,400.00 10.09.2002 From SJK CAPITAL PNB 4,99,000.00 TOTAL 22,96,400.00 The assessee alleged to have spent the above amount on purchase of house property as under : Date Particulars CHQ. NO. Amount. 06.06.2002 House purchase 559159 430,001.00 24.09.2002 House purchase 315487 1000,000.00 24.10.2002 Stamp duty paid in cash 243,020.00 24.10.2002 Registration expenses paid &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, is seen that in the case of the present appellant, the appellant has grossly failed to furnish the details of purchase or construction of a residential house within the stipulated period. The appellant has also not been able to demonstrate either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings whether the amount not invested in the residential house was deposited in the specified asset, as stipulated u/s 54F of the Act. 6.4 Thus, the appellant has grossly failed to substantiate his claim for grant of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The appellant has not filed any sort of document in support of his claim for investment in a residential house. The appellant has also failed to substantiate the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares without any documentary evidences. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the AO. This ground is dismissed accordingly, both on merits and legality. 5. Further learned CIT(Appeals) also rejected the assessee's claim of disallowance of the purchase value of shares amounting to Rs. 69,336/- from the sale proceeds and also bank charges amounting to Rs. 3601/-. 6. Against the above order, the assessee is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia and others in Writ Petition No. 397 of 2011 vide order dated 22nd February, 2012. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has held that a company cannot command disproportionate and huge share premium and such receipt of bogus share application money even though through banking channel can be held to be assessee's undisclosed income received in the garb of unjustified share application money. In the present case I find that there is no justification whatsoever that the shares of an unknown company of Rs. 5/- can be sold within two years time at Rs. 485/- without there being any reason on record. This unexplained spurt in the value of unknown company shares is beyond preponderance of probability. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasad Mor and Sumati Dayal that the test of human probabilities have also to be applied by the authorities below. In the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801, it was held that during the year 1970-71 (pertaining to the assessment year 1971-72) between April 6, 1970, and March 20, 1971, the appellant claims to have won in horse race a total amount of Rs. 3,11,831/- on 13 occasions out of which ten winnings were from jackp....