TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and unjustifiably made by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the transaction of Rs. 1,60,38,880/- was a sham transaction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,60,38,880/- received on account of sale proceeds of share was income from other sources liable to be taxed u/s 68. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that sale proceeds of the shares on account of shares sold in the Bombay Stock Exchange was a bogus transaction. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessee had not earned any Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of Goldline Finvest International Ltd. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,81,116/- incorrectly and unjustifiably made by the AO. " 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s providing the bogus long-term accommodation entries was also mentioned. The ld. Assessing Officer further referred to the financial statement of M/s. Goldline Finvest International Ltd. starting from March, 2012 to March, 2016 and stated that it has a meager turnover and a very small amount of profit. Therefore, he held that this company shows that at the time of investment made by the assessee it was having very poor financial capabilities and no future income prospectus. It has a negative Earning per share (EPS) and cannot be justified as a choice of investment option. Therefore, he held that there is no apparent reason why the assessee invested in the shares of such company. He further noted that appreciation of shares is approximately 4589%, which is astronomical. He further referred to the trading pattern of the above company and noted that it did not move along with the Sensex and it did not have any financial status to show any reason for this extraordinary performance. He further noted that the Investigation Directorate also noted this company to have been used for providing accommodation entries of long-term capital gain. He further noted that DDIT (Investigation) Unit 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence stating that it could not submit several documents before the Assessing Officer due to inadequate opportunities. The ld. CIT (Appeals) admitted such evidence vide para No. 3.1 of his order and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to submit a remand report. Vide para No. 5.2 he noted that assessee has purchased 50,000 shares on 28.12.2012 at Rs. 10/- per share of M/s. Goldline Finvest International Ltd. for Rs. 5,00,000/-. These shares were sold in trenches, 34,200 shares at a total consideration of Rs. 1,60,38,880/- through a broker of the assessee Parasram Holding Pvt. Ltd. He further noted that the Assessing Officer has recorded the statement of the appellant on 23.05.2019 wherein the assessee has admitted that he did not check the financials of the company and relied only on positive reviews given by his friends. Thus, he noted that assessee has purchased large number of shares in one go which did not have any name in the market and had bad financials. Accordingly, it proves that the appellant had no record of investing in such a company other than pre-arranged conversions of his unaccounted income into long-term capital ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....materialized in December, 2013 and sold the shares in parts in Bombay Stock Exchange; ii) The Investigating Wing report did not show this company has at all been suspended at any time and there are no adverse interim or final SEBI order against the assessee or his broker; iii) Despite furnishing the complete details, no meaningful enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer from the broker, stock exchange, or custodian to shift the onus to the assessee; iv) Merely artificial price rise alleged and dubious statement has made the sole basis for the addition; v) There is no rationale or live nexus between penny stock beneficiaries and the assessee and no cash circulation is traced; vi) Assessee is a capital investor; vii) Assessee is never confronted with any adverse material qua transactions and, therefore, there is a clear-cut violation of provisions of Section 142(3) of the Act; viii) The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any cogent material to throw back the onus back on the assessee where the assessee has successfully demonstrated his onus duly discharged under Section 68 of the Act. The addition has been made without any independent enqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in case of Udit kalra. He therefore submitted that the learned lower authorities of correctly decided the issue on the conduct of the assessee, human probabilities, preponderance of the probabilities et cetera. He therefore submitted that no fault can be found with the above orders and therefore they should be confirmed. 09. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and various orders of the lower authorities. We have also carefully considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the lower authorities, the learned authorised representative, and the learned departmental representative. In addition, judicial precedents have been considered by us in reaching our decision. 10. At the time of hearing advanced by the ld. Authorised representative, we directed him to show the sale of shares where the time and date stamp along with applicable security transaction tax has been paid. Therefore, we asked the ld. AR to show the contract notes of the actual transaction of the sale of such shares. The ld. AR took us to the Paper book containing 19 pages and referred to page Nos. 15 to 18. We have carefully perused those pages and find that those evidences are not at all the contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ascertain that assessee has sold those shares online on a stock exchange platform. Therefore, it is apparent that assessee has failed to produce a contract note for sale of the securities. In the absence of this all the arguments raised by the assessee cannot be accepted at this stage. 12. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Krishna Devi Agarwal (Supra) is also misplaced because in that case the assessee purchased shares online and sold those shares online. With respect to the opportunity of the Cross examination, this has been dealt with by the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Udit Kalra (supra) , therefore the lower authorities cannot be found fault for not giving an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. Further all the other decisions cited before us clearly shows that when the assessee has produced all the information/documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction of the earning of the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10 (38) and the learned assessing officer do not make any enquiry on such documents but merely relied on the report of the SEBI and other material and makes the addi....