TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2014-15 with the following grounds:- "1. That the learned CIT Appeals, Ujjain (M.P.) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 12,07,770/- being Short Term Capital loss incurred on trading of shares of UNO Industries Ltd. whereas the appellant deals in shares and loss incurred on the shares of other companies have been allowed. 2. That the learned CIT Appeals, Ujjain (M.P.) erred in holding that the shares of UNO Industries Ltd. were not transacted through recognized stock exchange. Actually the shares were held in the Demat Form with recognized DP and have been sold through Stock Exchange and the payments have also been made and received by A/c payee cheques. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the total income of the assessee holding the claim of short term capital loss made by the appellant was not genuine, which was, in turn, confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submission made by the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record including the orders passed by the Revenue. 5. The appellant purchased 59,000 equity shares of M/s. UNNO Industries Ltd. on 16.01.2014 at the rate of Rs. 32.95 per shares totaling to Rs. 19,44,050/- payment whereof was made on 25.03.2014 and ultimately sold those shares on 28.03.2014; such payment has been obtained through account payee cheque. It is the case of the applicant that those sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and finally the bank statement of the appellant duly highlighting the amount as realized from those sale of shares were duly submitted before the Ld. AO. Perusal of those documents does not suggest that the appellant is any way connected to M/s. UNNO Industries Ltd. It is further case made out by the assessee that in a similar set of facts the Hon'ble Hyderabad ITAT Benches in ITA No. 452/Hyd/2015 deleted addition made under Section 69A of the Act on account of so called shares transaction. The appellant has sold through Arihant Capital Markets Ltd. in BSE and transferred the shares to the purchaser from his Demat Account and the payment has also been obtained by means of A/c payee cheque only. It is true that the appellant has purchased ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim 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), 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 also relied on the so called "rules of suspicious transaction". No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee, in support of the genuineness of the transactions. In other words, the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. The entire conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities, are based on a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. I am bound by the proposition of law laid down in these case law. They are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not leaving his ground, could not controvert the claim of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue in question is covered by the above cited decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and the ITAT. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative filed detailed written submissions and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Rakhi Trading Private Ltd in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos.3174-3177 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No.3180 of 2011. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. As a matter of fact, suspicion can never take place of proof. In the absence of any evidence on record it is difficult if not impossible to hold that the transaction of buying and selling of shares were colourable transaction or were resorted to with ulterior motive. However, we have already discussed that similar sales transactions of the same scrips done through the registered share broker being a corporate member of BSE have been allowed by the Ld. Tribunal (Kolkata Bench) in similar set of facts. The evidence produced before the Revenue by the appellant in the instant case supports the genuinity of the transaction. No direct material was found and/or relied upon to controvert such evidence filed by the appellant in support of the ....