TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong term capital gain. 4. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO is that the AO during the scrutiny assessment noted that the assessee had claimed LTCG on sale of shares of M/s. Smart Champs I T Infra Ltd. (M/s. Cressanda Solutions Ltd.) According to AO, the assessee had purchased 10,000 shares of M/s. Cressanda Solutions Ltd. on 07.12.2011 investing Rs. 1,00,000/- and sold the entire share of M/s. Cressanda Solutions Ltd. (amalgamated company) between 25.03.2013 to 07.05.2013 for Rs. 30,78,601/-. Thereafter, the AO took note of the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing of Kolkata in respect of transaction of shares of penny stock companies carried out at Kolkata Stock Exchange & Bombay Stock Exchange wherein it was found out that artificial gains in the form of LTCG or artificial loss in the form of STCL was generated to the beneficiaries as per their requirements was carried out systematically to evade tax. Thereafter, he discusses the modus operandi as unraveled by the department. It was also noted by the AO that assessee was one of the beneficiaries after the investigation was carried out. The AO noted that despite the financial negativity of the M/s. Cress....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls' decisions in support of the claim made by the assessee wherein similar claim of LTCG has been upheld. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the Coordinate Bench decision in Navneet Agarwal, L/H of Lt. Kiran Agarwal Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2281/Kol/2017 for AY 2014-15 dated 20.07.2018 wherein the Tribunal was pleased to uphold the LTCG claim of the assessee in respect of sale of scrips of M/s. Cressenda Solutions Ltd. as well as the decision in Suman Saraf Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1395/Kol/2018 dated 05.10.2018 wherein also the Tribunal upheld the LTCG claim of assessee in respect of M/s. Cressenda Solutions Ltd., as well as the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Ritika Sarogi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1206/Kol/2018 for AY 2014-15 dated 21.02.2019. So he prayed that assessee's claim of LTCG be upheld. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR while supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) drew our attention to the fact that the scrip which was valued Rs. 1/- each before amalgamation with M/s. Cressenda Solutions Ltd. has gone upto Rs. 500/- per share within fifteen months is against human probability and the assessee failed to produce any evidence to show that there was any extraord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished in the paper book. I also note that these documents were furnished before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). I note that during the assessment proceedings, the AO influenced by the report of the Investigation Wing has not expressed his view in respect of the documents filed by the assessee to substantiate her claim and did not point out any defect in the documents provided by the assessee. The assessee in order to prove its bonafideness in the transaction filed the bank statement, invoice of purchase of shares, contract notes for sale of shares, earlier year's Balance Sheet showing the same being reflected as shares as investments etc. I note that during assessment proceedings when the AO expressed doubts about the genuineness of her claim based on the Investigation Report of the Investigation Wing, the assessee requested for a copy of the Investigation Report of the Investigation Wing, which was not furnished to the assessee. It was also brought to the notice of the AO that the assessee an individual was not related in any manner to the promoters or the directors of the company in question or to any person to whom the shares have been sold. The assessee contested the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han Rs. 38 thousand Crore have been identified and segregated DGIT(Inv.) wise. Total number of more than 60 thousand PAN numbers of the beneficiaries have been identified, which is being reported to assessment wings through the DGIT's. This report also covers more than 5000 Shell/Paper companies which are better known as Jamakharchi Companies, which are involved in providing bogus accommodation of various kinds. Statements of most of the Directors were recorded on oath and part of the said report. Later, he stated that M/s Cressenda Solution Ltd. is one of the 84 scrips which were identified by the 'Directorate of Investigation', as involved in the scheme of bogus LTCG/STCG and that the name and PAN no. of the assessee is part of list of beneficiaries identified by the Directorate. Thereafter, he discussed the "Modus Operandi" of these companies and held that the total sale consideration earned by the assessee is to be added as unexplained cash credit as these are sale of bogus shares. 3. The Modus Operandi listed out by the AO is summarized as follows: i. The initial allotment of shares to beneficiaries is generally done through preferential all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties. xii. The shares of these companies are not available for buy/sell to any person outside the syndicate. This is generally ensured by way of synchronized trading by the operators amongst themselves and/or by utilizing the mechanism of upper/lower circuit of the Exchange. The assessee submitted various documents in support of her claim that the transactions in question are genuine. She also relied on certain case laws. The AO did not accept the evidence filed by the assesseein support of her claim and by relying on the report of the investigating wing rejectedthe claim of the assessee that she had earned capital gains on the genuine sale of shares. He held that the receipt is an unexplained cash credit and made an addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter on appeal. 4. The First Appellate Authority had given his decision from page 41 of his order. His findings are summarized as follows: a) The AO had placed on record the entire gamut of finding and there is no further requirement for elaboration. b) There is direct evidence to clearly indicate that the entire transaction undertaken by the assesseewas merel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01.11.2011 to 31.12.2013. It was further submitted that these shares were sold through the broker"SKP Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd."who is a SEBI registered broker and all the evidences in this regard were filed. It was pleaded that the scripts were held for more than 500 days, which proves the bonafide nature of the shareholdings as no sale was done immediately on completion of 365 days. It was submitted that the assessee is not connected with the promoters and has nothing to do with the alleged rigging of shares, if any. Reliance was placed on number of decisions for the proposition that, evidence cannot be discarded by applying theory of human behavior and the theory of preponderance of probabilities. 7. On the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A), he submitted as follows: a. As regards the allegation in respect of artificial rigging up of the price of shares, it is submitted that the ld. A.O. did not provide any documentary evidence of a live link and direct relation to such alleged rigging of prices with the assessee. Hence, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee in this regard. b. That the sale transactions in question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a phenomenal rise in the near future. The assessee merely acted on the basis of such market information and happened to get phenomenal gain. It could have been otherwise as well. The rags to riches story in the stock market are a galore. But the scope of downside in this particular scrip was virtually nil as the assessee was getting the shares at the rock bottom price. So, she took a prudent but calculated risk. g. It has been submitted that the alleged circumstances, circumstantial evidence and material has led the A.O. to believe that the real is not the apparent. 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 department's conjectures. Blaming the assessee by vague observations and drawing an adverse inference without any admissible evidence on record, is bad in law, illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio. h. It is further submitted that investment in a company with weak fundamentals can be for several reasons such as professional advice, reasonable price per share, a foreseeable turnaround, past pricing and volume patterns and just mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial which can prove the complicity of assessee in the alleged accommodation entry operation. If the assessee has taken advantage of the price rise in an open manner through the transaction conducted in the official online system, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. 8. He submitted that the overwhelming documentary and circumstantial evidence has to be considered and not mere suspicion and preponderance of probabilities. He relied on a number of case laws, which we would refer to, as and when necessary. 9. The ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of the assessing officer and reiterated the findings made therein and submitted that the same be upheld. He vehemently argued that merely because the assessee has produced all the evidences required to prove his claim, the same cannot be accepted as these are organized and managed transactions. He took this bench through the modus operandi mentioned by the AO and submitted that in all cases where the shares of these companies are purchased and sold, additions have to be made, irrespective of the evidence produced as there are cases where manipulation has taken place. He reiterated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistered broker and earned a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,18,13,072/-. (Copy of the bank statement, brokers contract note together with the delivery instructions given to the DP and broker's confirmation is also placed in the paper book at page no 44 to 65). 7. Copy of Form No. 10DB issued by the broker, in support of charging of S.T.T. in respect of the transactions appearing in the ledger is placed in the paper book at page no. 66. 8. The holding period of the said scrip is more than one year (above 500 days) through in order to get the benefit of claim of Long Term Capital Gain the holding period is required to be 365 days. 12.The assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have rejected these evidences filed by the assessee by referring to "Modus Operandi" of persons for earning long term capital gains which his exempt from income tax. All these 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 ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he is just an investor and as she received some tips and she chose to invest based on these market tips and had taken a calculated risk and had gained in the process and that she is not partyto the scam etc., has to be controverted by the revenue with evidence. When a person claims that she has done these transactions in a bona fide and genuine manner and was benefitted, one cannot reject this submission based on surmises and conjectures. As the report of investigation wing suggests, there are more than 60,000 beneficiaries of LTCG. Each case has to be assessed based on legal principles of legal importlaid down by the Courts of law. 15.In our view, just the modus operandi, generalisation, preponderance of human probabilities cannot be the only basis for rejecting the claim of the assessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary 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(Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of any finding specifically against the assessee in the investigation wing report, the assessee cannot be held to be guilty or linked to the wrong acts of the persons investigated. In this case, in our view, the Assessing Officer at best could have considered the investigation report as a starting point of investigation. The report only informed the assessing officer that some persons may have misused the script for the purpose of collusive transaction. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to make inquiry from all concerned parties relating to the transaction and then to collect evidences that the transaction entered into by the assessee was also a collusive transaction. We, however, find that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. The Hon'ble Court held: "Adverting to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thumb, as it were, came to the conclusion that the possession of 150 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each". The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are equally applicable to the case of the assessee. In our view, the assessing officer having failed to bring on record any material to prove that the transaction of the assessee was a collusive transaction could not have rejected the evidences submitted by the assessee. In fact, in this case nothing has been found against the assessee with aid of any direct evidences or material against the assessee despite the matter being investigated by various wings of the Income Tax Department hence in our view under these circumstances nothing can be implicated against the assessee. 18. We now consider the various propositions of law laid down by the Courts of law.That cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice has been laid down in the following judgments: a) AyaaubkhanNoorkhan Pathan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. "23. A Constitution Bench of this Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid statements are provided to the government servant, he will not be able to conduct an effective and useful cross-examination. 29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2009SC 1100, this Court held: Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses are not available for cross-examination or similar situation. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded to consider the issue on a technical plea, namely, no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant by such non-examination. If the basic principles of law have not been complied with or there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction of judicial review. 30. The aforesaid discussion makes it evident that, not only should the opportunity of crossexamination be made available, but it should be one of effec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005[2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 7. 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 notice." 19. On similar facts where the revenue has alleged that the assessee has declared bogus LTCG, it was held as follows: a) The CALCUTTAHIGH ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7(O&M)] dated18.01.2018 at vide Page 3 Para 4 held as under: "..... The Assessing Officer in both the cases added the appreciation to the assessee's' income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessee's' income from undisclosed sources. In ITA-18-2017 also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very high, the shares were traded on the National Stock Exchange and the payments and receipts were routed through the bank. There was no evidence to indicate for instance that this was a closely held company and that the trading on the National Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner." The Court also held the following vide Page 3 Para 5 the following: "Question (iv) has been dealt with in detail by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Firstly, the documents on which the Assessing Officer relied upon in the appeal were not put to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) nevertheless considered them in detail and found th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see u/s 68 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition." e) The BENCH "D" OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of KIRAN KOTHARI HUF [ITA No. 443/Kol/2017] order dated 15.11.2017 held vide Para 9.3 held as under: "........ We find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire 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 which are supported with material evidences furnished by the assessee which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). We note that the allegations that the assesse/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore consequently 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. Neither these evidences were found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act." g) The BENCH "H"OF MUMBAIITAT in the case of ARVINDKUMAR JAINHUF[ITA No.4682/Mum/2014]order dated 18.09.2017 held as under vide Page 6 Para 8: "......We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been recorded by CIT (A) to the effect that assessee has made investment in shares which was purchased on the floor of stock exchange and not from M/s Basant Periwal and Co. Against purchases payment has been made by account payee cheque, delivery of shares were taken, contract of sale was also complete as per the Contract Act, therefore, the assessee is not concerned with any way of the broker. Nowhere the AO has alleged that the transaction by the assessee with these particular broker or share was bogus, merely because the investigation was done by SEBI against broker or his activity, assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction, insofar as assessee is not concerned with the activity of the broker and have no control over the same. We found that M/s Basant Peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal came to concurrent conclusion that the purchases already made by the assessee from Raj Impex were duly supported by bills and payments were made by Account Payee cheque. Raj Impacts also confirmed the transactions. There was no evidence to show that the amount was recycled back to the assessee. Particularly, when it was found that the assessee the trader had also shown sales out of purchases made from Raj Impex which were also accepted by the Revenue, no question of law arises." 20. Applying the proposition of law as laid down in the above-mentioned judgments to the facts of this case we are bound to consider and rely on the evidence produced by the assessee in support of its claim and base our decision on such evidence and not on suspicion or preponderance of probabilities. No material was brought on record by the AO to controvert the evidence furnished by the assessee. Under these circumstances, we accept the evidence filed by the assessee and allow the claim that the income in question is a bona fide Long Term Capital Gain arising from the sale of shares and hence exempt from income tax. 21.Under the circumstances and in view of the above discussion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & there is unusually high gain, is not sufficient to treat the LTCG as bogus when all the paperwork is in order. The revenue has to bring material on record to support it's findings that there has been collusion/connivance between the Broker & the Appellant for the introduction of unaccounted money. 13. In the case of DCIT Vs. Sunita Khemka, ITAT Kolkata ruled that the AO cannot treat a transaction as bogus only the basis of suspicion or surmises. He has to bring material on record to support his findings that there has been a collusion/connivance between the Broker and the Appellant for the introduction of its unaccounted money. A transaction of purchase and sale of shares, supported by Contract Notes and d-mat statements and account payee cheques cannot be treated as bogus. 14. In the case of KAMALA DEVI S DOSHI VS. ITO ITAT MUMBAI, vide it's order dated 22.5.2017 held that statement u/s 131 of the Act implicating Appellant is not sufficient to draw adverse inference where documents in the form of Contract Notes, bank statements, STT payment etc. proves the genuineness of purchase and sale of Penny Stock. Failure to provide cross examination is a fatal error. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the paper book which is placed at pages 76 to 87. The Board resolution passed by the company for the transactions in commodity was placed at page 88 of the paper book. On the other hand the ld. DR relied in the order of the lower authorities. 4.1 From the aforesaid discussion we find that the assessee has incurred losses from the off market commodity transactions and the AO held such loss as bogus and inadmissible in the eyes of the law. The same loss was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). However we find that all the transactions through the broker were duly recorded 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." ii) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] (Cal HC) - In this case the ld AO found that the formal evidences produced by the assessee to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 sale of shares by the Assessee were not genuine. vii) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22 of 2009 dated 29.4.2009] - In this case the Assessee claimed exemption of income from Long Term Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. It was also found that the assessee produced the contract notes, details of demat accounts and produced documents showing all payments were received by the assessee through banks. On these facts, the appeal of the revenue was summarily dismissed by High Court. 17. I note that since the purchase and sale transactions are supported and evidenced by Bills, Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 by adducing evidence of a definite character which would directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising inference of that fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that it is not enough to show circumstances which might create suspicion because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. The ld AR submitted that similar view has been taken in the following judgments while deciding the issue relating to exemption claimed by the assessee on LTCG on alleged Penny Socks. (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs. J. C. Agarwal HUF - ITYA No. 32/Agr/2007 (Agra ITAT) 19. Moreover it was submitted before us by ld AR that the AO was not justified in taking an adverse view against the assessee on the ground of abnormal price rise of the shares and alleging price rigging. It was submitted that there is no allegation in orders of SEBI and/or the enquiry r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncial year 2005-06 and the said findings of the AO with respect to bogus and sham purchases were not challenged by the Assessee. In such facts of the case the Tribunal had treated the exempt long term capital gains arising on sales of shares as bogus and sham. However, there is no such finding of fact in the instant case and thus the facts in the instant case are distinguishable. It was brought to my notice that the aforesaid order of ITAT, Mumbai, inter-alia, had been distinguished by Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following cases: a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Ko/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] b. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 2. Ritu Sanjay Mantry vs. ITO - ITA No.2003/Mum/2017, Order dt. 9th February, 2018 - ITAT Mumbai In this case is that was reopened by the AO on the basis of information received from office of DGIT (C&IB), New Delhi that the assessee had taken accommodation entry from M/s. Magasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. (a company in the Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. group share scam case) of Rs. 10,32,289/-. Subsequently the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8-ITA No. 22 of 2009, Order dt. 29.4.09] 3) Coming to the case of ITO vs. Shamim M. Bharwani (2016) 69 taxmann.com (Mum ITAT), Order dt. 27.03.2015 of Mumbai Triabunal, the brief facts in this case was that the assessee purchased 2500 shares of Emrald Commercial Ltd. (ECl). The purchase was in cash. According to the AO since the purchase was made in cash, the same was not verifiable. Further, the A.O. found that said transaction was not through the stock exchange. The shares were in a nondescript company, with no financial and/or physical assets of value or reported earnings. The shares, purchased at an average rate of Rs. 21.70 per share in May 2004, went up to as much as from Rs. 465 to Rs. 489 in July, 2005, i.e., just over years' time. Each of these incidents matched with that which could be expected in a case of a transaction in a penny stock, the modus operandi of the transactions in which was also listed by the AO. Accordingly, relying on the decisions by the apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC); Durga Prasad More v. CIT [1971] 182 ITR 540 (SC) and MC. Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/Kol/2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, 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 1st July, 2019 rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Aparna Misra vs. ITO [ITA No.161/KoIl2019] wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court judgments, as mentioned hereinabove. 5. M. K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 339 - The Bangalore Tribunal noted the acts in this case as the assessee earned long-term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL and claimed exemption on it under section 10(38). The Assessing Officer relying upon the report of the investigation wing, SEBI report and findings/observations of the SIT, concluded that exemption under section 10(38) claimed by the assessee was not acceptable and the act of the assessee in purchasing the penny stock shares and sale of fee within the ambit of adventure in the nature of trade. Consequently, amount in question was liable to be taxed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the Assessee Company all relevant documents were furnished to support, and prove beyond all doubts, purchases and as well as sale of shares. Further this judgment has been considered and distinguished by this Tribunal 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. 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) 8. Coming to the case of Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (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 that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. The relevant observation is as under: " ..... On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. Once the transaction of purchase a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ravind Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 08.11.2018] Vikram Dughar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 13.11.2018] Sadhana, Bangalore vs. ITO [Order dt. 26.05.2017] Arun Kumar Bhaiya, New Delhi vs. ITO [Order dt. 30.08.2018] Natti Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. ACIT [Order dt. 31.10.2018] Vinod J. Sharma, Thane [Order dt. 28.10.2015] All the matters were set aside to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and/or to confront the Assessee with the adverse materials used against him. The matters in each of the said cases were set aside in the specific facts and circumstances of each of the cases were set aside in the specific facts and circumstances of each of the cases wherein all facts were not available on record and/or where in the words of the D/R the "AO has botched up enquiry". However, in the case in hand there is no occasion for setting aside the matter in as much as the assessee had furnished all relevant documents, materials and/or evidence to support its transactions of purchase and as well as sale of shares and the AO had failed to point out any defect and/or lacuna in the said documents, materials and/or evidence. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.2017 (Bom HC) had been considered and distinguished by this Tribunal and other benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/Kol/2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 12. Coming to the cases given below: ACIT vs. Madhuri Sunil Kotecha [ITAT, Pune, Order dt. 28.03.2018] Charu Agarwal, Meerut vs. ITO [ITAT, Delhi, Order dt. 10.09.2018] Dayaram Khandelwal vs. PCIT [MP High Court, Order dt. 01.03.2018] Sourabh Khandelwal vs. PCIT [MP High Court, Order dt. 01.03.2018] It is noted that in all of these cases relates to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts where the Assessee had withdrawn/surrendered his/her claim of exempt L TCG u/s. 10(38) of the Act and paid taxes on the gains arising from sale of shares. All these judgments are irrelevant and has no application to the facts of the instant case before the Tribunal. 13. Coming to the case of SEBI v. Rakhi Trading P.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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.05.10.2018. xv. Santosh Choraria vs. ITO in ITA NO.521/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xvi. Sonal Bajaj vs. ITO in ITA No.239/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xvii. Sudha Khandelwal v. ITO in ITA No.86/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xviii. Bina Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA NO.1403/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.1 0.2018. xix. Harish Jain vs. ITO in ITA No. 1404/Ko1/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. Thus, it is noted that aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Tribunal are distinguishable and so the ratio is not applicable to the case/cases in hand. 22. In the light of the documents filed by the assessee before the AO/Ld. CIT(A) and before us, which could not be controverted by any material by AO, so respectfully following the ratio laid by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts and the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal, and the decision in the case of Navneet Agarwal (supra) wherein the claim of LTCG for sale of sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(d) Interest derived to be relatable to exempt income [(a)x(b)/(c)] 2,894 (e) Other expenses derived to be relatable to exempt income [(b) x 0.5%] 4,147 (f) Total amount derived to be relatable to exempt income [(d) + e)] 7,041 6.4 In the light of the discussions made as above, an amount of 7,041/- is disallowed u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [DISALLOWANCE: Rs. 7,041/-] 08. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the following submissions: DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A: During the year under consideration, the assessee had invested in shares of different companies. The assessee had also earned excepted income in the nature of dividend. However, the assessee has not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the I T Act, 1961 out of the expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account. 5.2. In view of the above, the assessee was asked to explain why section 14A of the I T Act, 1961 should not be applicable in his case. During the course of hearing, the A.R of the assessee has only stated that no expense has been claimed for earning exempted income. 5.3. It is held that some expenditure must ha....