TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capital gain on sale of listed shares of Rs. 5,38,89,313/-. The assessee purchased 65,000 equity shares of M/s. Transcend Commerce Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/- on 16.10.2012 from Subh Mangal Sales Pvt. Ltd. at face value of Rs. 10 each. The said shares were credited in the D-mat account of assessee with M/s. Kantilal Chaganlal Securities Pvt. Ltd. on 13.12.2012 along with other shareholdings of assessee. M/s. Transcend Commerce Ltd. was merged with M/s. S.R.K. Industries Ltd. as per the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 21.12.2012 and the assessee was allotted 1,44,300 shares of Rs. 10 each of M/s. S.R.K. Industries Ltd. The said shares were subdivided and face value of the share was reduced to Rs. 5 per share on 14.10.2013 and consequently the assessee was allotted 2,88,600 shares of M/s. S.R.K. Industries Ltd. These shares were sold at Stock Exchange Mumbai through registered broker M/s. Vishesh Capital Pvt. Ltd. between 16.12.2013 and 10.01.2014 and STT was paid. The total sale consideration realized from of sale of shares was Rs. 5,46,21,248/-. The assessee after reducing the cost of purchase of Rs. 6,50,000/- calculated the long term capital gain of Rs. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one of the 84 penny stock identified after widespread investigation by Directorate of Investigation Kolkatta. Thus the findings of enquiry/investigation report from Kolkata Investigation Wing are squarely applicable to the case of the appellant. Thus it is clear the action of the appellant is nothing but is premeditated contumacious conduct, surreptitiously done for specific reasons for converting unaccounted money of the appellant under the guise of Long Term Share Transaction claiming as exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. This is clearly a tax evasion from the above analysed facts and surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probability. The A.O. has clearly established that the impugned transactions are not made for an investment i.e. the motive is not derive income but to earn profit that too, by an arrangement. It is a manipulated transaction in collusion with broker/entry operator to claim exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act. This is in accordance with the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 214 ITR 801 (SC), that" the apparent must be considered the real until it is shown that there are reasons to believ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, contract notes, transactions through banking channels and payment of STT etc. then the mere fact that the scrip has risen many time can not be a sole ground for treating the transactions as bogus. The Ld. A.R. in defense of his arguments relied on a series of decisions namely; 1. Smt. Geeta Khare vs. ACIT in ITA No.4267/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 and Sashikant B. Mhatre HUF ITA No.694/M/2018 order dated 29.05.2019 2. Smt. Bhavna B. Kothari vs. ITO in ITA No.3740/M/2019 order dated 11.09.2020 The Ld. A.R. submitted that in both the above decisions the same scrip of M/s. S.R.K. Industries Ltd. was involved and was decided in favour of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. also relied on a series of other decisions namely; (1) Sailesh Jain HUF vs. ITO in ITA No.6068/M/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 (2) Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO 100 taxman.com 172 Mumbai (3) ITO vs. M/s. Arvind Kumar Jain HUF in ITA No.4862/M/2014 order dated 18.09.2017. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in all the above decisions the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held that where assessee has filed all evidences of purchase and sale, cover notes, payment proof, D-mat account etc. and AO has sim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bringing on record any concrete evidences to the contrary. As the long term capital gain which was earned through recognized stock exchange and is evidenced by the documentary evidences and mere fact that the scrip price has risen many times can not be sole factor for treating the same as bogus. We also note that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the above two cases namely Smt. Geeta Khare vs. ACIT (supra) and Smt. Bhavna B. Kothari vs. ITO (supra), the scrip involved was M/s. S.R.K. Industries Ltd. and the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held the long term capital gain to be genuine and not bogus. The operative part in the case of Smt. Geeta Khare vs. ACIT (supra) is extracted below: "7. We have heard the rival submissions. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on certain statements recorded by the Investigation wing of Kolkata Income Tax Department during some survey proceedings conducted in third party cases. We find that in none of those statements, the name of the assessee or the name of the brokers through whom assessee had transact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Feb 2014 to Dec 2015 were 82818409 shares. This will be clear from the following table:- Upto Jan Jan 14 to 2014 Dec-15 No. of No. of Shares Shares traded traded 100 4778156 500 20544716 200 1200905 100 2982153 300 558044 100 48031 35 25842 62156 188670 528 1755017 172 5965728 941 4542919 219901 800299 445841 2361304 134745 4568884 863657 2135413 2220786 3212730 2208340 4916774 4197610 3271357 6277016 5489375 10156920 9210300 13464417 4243196 3659 14937 Total 40254365 82818409 7.1.1. From the above tabulation, it could be seen that the assessee had exited from the market by selling the shares once there was heavy selling of the shares of SRK Industries Ltd on the fear element being setting in for further reduction of prices. We find that these after Jan 2014, these shares were heavily traded in the open market. In any case, it is not for the revenue to decide as to at what time the assessee should exit from his holding of shares in the open market. It is for the assessee to decide. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company even as on 26.2.2019. 7.3. We find that the ld AO sought to identify the alleged purchasers of shares from the assessee and issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all of them. All the notices sent through speed post returned unserved. Based on this, adverse inference was drawn by the ld AO on the assessee. We find that the ld AR had already submitted that in an online platform of trading of shares in the open market through a registered stock broker, it is not possible for the assessee to even know the name and address of the purchasers when the assessee sells the shares in the open market. In any case, merely because the alleged purchasers list given by the ld AO in his assessment order had not responded to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, no adverse inference could be drawn on the assessee for the default committed by those alleged purchasers. The ld AO could have very well resorted to issuance of summons u/s 131 of the Act to those alleged purchasers and / or take necessary action on them in the manner known to law for non-compliance from their side. We hold that the assessee need not discharge her onus of bringing on record the alleged purchasers especially when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation from friends, relatives, or in some stock market related websites and take a chance. Since the scrip purchased by the assessee was showing considerable growth from the time of purchase, the assessee being a gullible investor continued to hold it for a period of 14 months and later sold it in open market in online platform at prevailing market prices. 7.5. We find that the ld AO had observed that the assessee had traded only in the shares of SRK Industries Ltd. This is factually incorrect statement of the ld AO. Moreover, the ld AO had during the course of examination of the assessee on oath u/s 131 of the Act had even posed a question vide Question No. 24 that assessee had purchased very few shares of well reputed companies during the year like Indus Ind Bank, Crompton Greaves, Larsen and Toubro etc. We find that the ld AO in para 13.4 of his order had observed that on examination of Shri Shivajirao Jondhale on oath u/s 131 of the Act, it was noticed that he had also invested in the shares of SRK Industries Ltd only based on an advice of his friend. Based on this, the ld AO had concluded that the whole basis of purchase of this share is a preknowledge of rigging o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the issues involved in this appeal are brought out by the Assessing Officer at paragraphs 3 & 4 of the assessment order, which is extracted for ready reference:- "3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee has filed his/her return showing income from salary of Rs. 84,000/- & income from other sources of Rs. 6,12,677/-. However, in its computation of income the assessee has computed LTCG of Rs. 5,50,159/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the I. T. Act. Therefore, all of a sudden earning of such huge exempted income from LTCG requires for examination in detail. Return data analysis of past years shows the following picture:- Assessment Year Income from salary Short Term Capital Gain Income from other Source Gross Total Income Total Income Exempt LTCG 2012-13 0 0 8,63,168 8,63,168 7,43,168 NIL 2013-14 2,40,000 0 3,98,213 6,38,213 5,36,940 NIL 2014-15 0 4,80,227 6,12,677 11,76,904 10,61,900 5,50,158 4. Main issues involved: The main reason for selection of scrutiny of this case was to examine the earning of suspicious capital gain from transaction in penny stock (input gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old as follows:- 6.1. Recently, the Kolkata "C‟ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navneet Agarwal,-vsITO, Ward-35(3), Kolkata; I.T.A. No. 2281/Kol/2017; Assessment Year: 2014-15, while dealing with identical issue of sale of shares decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying upon a plethora of judgments of various Courts. It held as follows:- "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 assesses. No opportunity of cross-examination of persons, on whose statements the revenue relies to make the addition, is provided to the assessee. The addition is made based on a report from the investigation wing. 13. The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the lega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 import laid down by the Courts of law. 15. In our view 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(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling food grains and other commodities to Bengal by country boats acquired by Sahibgunj and the notoriety achieved by Dhulian as a great receiving centre for such commodities were merely a background of suspicion and the appellant could not be tarred with the same brush as every arhatdar and grain merchant who might have been indulging in smuggling operations, without an iota of evidence in that behalf. The cancellation of the food grain licence at Nawgachia and the prosecution of the appellant under the Defence of India Rules was also of no consequence inasmuch as the appellant was acquitted of the offence with which it had been charged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. "23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC 708; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice." b) Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II wherein it was held that: "4. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the Assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 5. 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 imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 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 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT in the case of BLB CABLES & CONDUCTORS [ITA No. 78 of 2017] dated 19.06.2018. The High Court held vide Para 4.1: "............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. Here in the case the transactions of the commodity exchanged have not only been explained but also substantiated from the confirmation of the party. Both the parties are confirming the transactions which have been duly supported with the books of accounts and bank transactions. The ld. AR has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely 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 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." d) The BENCH "D" OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of GAUTAM PINCHA [ITA No.569/Kol/2017] order dated 15.11.2017 held as under vide Page 12 Para 8.1: "In the light of the documents stated i.e. (I to xiv) in Para 6(supra) we find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to have entered gamut of unfounded/unwarranted allegations leveled by the AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion has no legs to stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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(A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. It is to be kept in mind that suspicion how so ever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. It further held as follows: "We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Periwal and Co. never stated any of the authority that transactions in M/s Ramkrishna Fincap Pvt. Ltd. On the floor of the stock exchange are ingenuine or mere accommodation entries. The CIT (A) after relying on the various decision of the coordinate bench, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, issue was decided in favour of the assessee, came to the conclusion that transaction entered by the assessee was genuine. Detailed finding recorded by CIT (A) at para 3 to 5 has not been controverted by the department by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT (A)." h) The Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares and hence exempt from income tax." The scrips in question were the subject matter of adjudication before this Tribunal. The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in a number of decisions have, on similar facts and circumstances of the case, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We list some of these decisions:- * Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017 * ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017 * Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt. 18/08/2017 * Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017 The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court had in the following cases, upheld the claim of the assessee:- * CIT vs. Shreyashi Gang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed the claim of the assessee by recording that the purchase of shares during the year 1999- 2000 and 2000-2001 were duly recorded in the books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recorded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect that the shares were in-fact transferred to the name of the Assessee. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the Assessee had purchased shares out of the funds duly disclosed by the Assessee cannot be faulted. 6. Similarly, the sale of the said shaers for Rs. 1,41,08,484/- through two Brokers namely, M/s Richmond Securities Pvt Ltd and M/s Scorpio Management Consultants Pvt Ltd cannot be disputed, because the fact that the Assessee has received the said amount is not in dispute. It is neither the case of the Revenue that the shares in question are still lying with the Assesse nor it is the case of the Revenue that the amounts received by the Assessee on sale of the shares is more than what is declared by th....