TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant to be proceeds of shares sold to be LTCG and claimed as exempt. The findings of the Ld. AO are based on the information being supplied by the Investigation wing of the Department at Kolkata. I have also carefully examined the submissions of the appellant, wherein he has cited several cases wherein the claim has been made that the decisions are in his favour. I have also carefully examined the submissions filed by the appellant assessee before the Ld. AO during the course of the scrutiny assessment. On perusal o the sub mission filed by the assessee, report received from DGIT(Inv.),Kolkata and available records, the following noteworthy features of the transactions have surfaced as disclosed hereunder: Tunl Textile Mills Stand alone balance sheet .... In Rs Cr.... Equities and liabilities shareholders fund Mar 15 Mar 14 Mar 13 Mar 12 Mar 11 Equities share capital 13.18 13.18 13.18 13.18 13.18 Total share capital 13.18 13.18 13.18 13.18 13.18 Reserves and surplus -0.85 -0.92 -1.17 -1.17 -1.47 Total Reserve and surplus -0.85 -0.92 &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;20.14 Rs. 22.71 24.25 21.52 21.89 Tuni Textile Mills Previous Year Standalone Profit & loss account .....in Rs. Cr.... Mar'15 Mar'14 Mar'13 Mar'12 Mar'11 Income Sales Turnover 29.76 24.52 19.32 22.01 18.30 Net sales 29.76 24.52 19.32 22.01 18.30 Other income 0.20 0.22 0.07 0.07 0.12 Stock adjustments -1.35 1.05 1.17 0.71 0.08 Total income 28.61 25.79 20.76 22.79 19.50 Expenditure Raw materials 23.75 20.57 16.03 18.82 16.39 Power & fuel cost 0.50 0.89 0.68 0.51 0.33 Employee cost 1.27 1.34 0.91 0.83 0.78 Other manufacturing expenses 0.74 1.15 0.81 0.52 0.37 Miscellaneous expenses 0.57 0.12 0.71 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices of shares have been observed in case of some other companies, whose fundamentals are not justifying the northern movement of the stocks. The SEBI has suspended trading in 26 Scrips of such penny stocks. f. On investigation and analysis of the trend, it is deducted by the SEBI that circular trading and price rigging by the operators were responsible for such momentous price rise of a stock, defeating the fundamentals of the stock market. The SEBI also analyzed the data to infer that all the persons involved in this unscrupulous trading activity "misused the stock exchange mechanism to provide exit to allottee at a higher price in order to generate fictitious Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)'. It is observed that the assessee offloaded the shares at the absurdly high price [almost 5 times the purchases price]. The relevant data of some of the transactions have been analyzed. On analysis it is seen that paper companies floated by various operators purchased those shares of extremely high price, which normally did not have any business prudence. It is also highly significant that the price of the shares fell very sharply after the shares of LTCG beneficiaries were off loaded thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....your source of Income? Ans. My PAN is AACPP8853C. I do not know my exact Ward office. I have filed return of income till date i.e. upto A.Y 2014-15. I am providing you a copy of my PAN. Sir, my source of income is remuneration as a Director of M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. and income fro other sources. Q.4 Please give the details of your family members residing with you and their occupation? Ans. The following members are residing with me. Sl.No. Name Relationship Occupation 1 Smt Urmila N Sureka Wife Director of M/s Tuni Textile Ltd 2 Shri Pradeep P Sureka Brother Director of M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. and promoter/shareholder of M/s Yeshmank Infn. Pvt Ltd. 3 Smt. Annapurna P Sureka Sister-in-law Housewife 4 Smt. Geetadevi P Sureka Mother Housewife 5 Shri Archit P Sureka Brother's son Student Q.5 Please give the details of movable and immovable properties owned by you and your family members? Ans. Sir, the house at Ashray,a 78 Hatkesh Society, 9th Road, JVPD scheme, Vile Parie West, Mumbai-49 is udner "pagdri" system , and I have no other immovable property. My brother Shri Pradeep P Sureka has flat in his name in Pune. This office prem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....my knowledge the company was listed with the BSE in 1996. Q.10 Please state the name of the other directors of the company M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd and also state who appointed them. Ans. Sir, the details of the other directors of the company are as follows: Sr. No. Name DIN Date of appointment Place of residence 1 Kumar Pramod Prasad Kashi Bajaj 01438374 01.02.2005 Mumbai 2 Pradeep P Sureka 01632706 06.07.1987 Mumbai 3 Urmila Sureka 02344028 23.03.2015 Mumbai 4 Kamalji W Dixit 06952563 13.02.2015 Thane 5 Aditdya Proshottam Khaitan 07009083 13.02.2015 Thane Sir, the directors who have joined after me have been appointed by me as a I am the Managing Director and Chairman of the company. Q.11 Please explain the role and responsibilities of these directors and tell the nature of work done by these directors in M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. Ans. Sir, I only look after the do day to day activities of the company. Shri Pradeep P Sureka looks after the marketing division of the company. the other directors have no participation in day to day affairs of the company. I brief them on a regular basis about the day to day affairs of the company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isted due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements of BSE. Thereafter, due to change in govt. policy and economic scenario, the company M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd incurred losses. Then we applied with BIFR in the year 2000. This unit was declared sick unit on 16.04.20002. Thereon, the company wanted to revive, however, no financial institution was forthcoming to finance the company. In pursuance of finance for the company, i came in contract with Shri Manish Baid, Shri Manish Baid suggested me the route of preferential shares to raise capital. He brought all the parties who have invested in the company through preferential share allotment. I have never met these parties and I have no knowledge about their business activities. Q.20. You have stated that you do not know anything about any of the HUFs/individuals which have subscribed the share of M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd on preferential basis and you have never met any of them. You have also stated that these HUFs/Individuals invested in shares of M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd through Shri Manish Baid. Please confirm. Ans. Sir,I confirm that I do no t know the details of the HUFs/individuals which have invested in shares ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbai-2, Further, as stated above these parties are not known to me as they were brought by Shri Manish Baid. None of them have ever attended the AGMs of the company, M/sTuni Textile Mills Ltd. Q.24 What was the share price of the shares at the time of preferential allotment of the shares? Ans. Sir, the company was again listed with the BSE on 13.03.2009. As per available records the price of the shares on 10.05.2010 was Rs.0.65/-. Q.25. It is seen that the price of the shares of M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd have risen from Rs.065/- on 10.05.2010 to Rs.284.90 on 05.11.2012. This is a rise of 17806% within a span of two years. During this period there has been no corporate announcement by M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd which suggests that the company is undertaking any substantial development activity. Further there is no significant increase in turnover of the company. It is also seen from the trading details of M/s Tuni Textiles Mills Learned." Textile Mills Ltd that all the preferential allottees have sold their shares during the period when the price of the shares were hovering around its peak Le Rs.284.90 on 05.11.2012. Once the preferential allottees sold their shares the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tile Mills Ltd was carried out on 07.04.2011. The split was earned out as per suggestion of Shri Manish Baid. I have no Idea for the reason/purpose for which such split of the shares of Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. was required. Q.28. Please state, whether any bonus shares were issued In the shareholders of M/s. Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. Also state the requirement to do such an act of issue of bonus shares of M/s. Tunl Textile Mills Ltd? Ans. Sir, no bonus shares were Issued ,to any shareholders of M/s. Tuni Textile Mills Ltd till date. Q.29. I am showing you the statements of as follows: * Shrl Sanjay Vora of Anand Rathi Share Broker * Shrl Blkash sureke/subrata Halder of BSAS Securities Pvt. Ltd. * Shrl Abhlsek Kayan of Dynamic Equities Services Ltd. * Shri Praveen Agarwal of Gateway Financial Services Ltd. * Shri Ashok Kayan of Kayan Securities Pvt. Ltd. * Pradeep lain of Nkamlchi Securities Ltd. * Pawan K. Kayan of PKC Commodities Ltd & Subh Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. * Shrl Narendra Belasia of StllC Global Securities Ltd. * Shri Sunil Kumar Kayan of Sunll Kumar Kayan & Co. * Shri Anll Agarwal of M/s Comfort Securities Ltd. The above mentioned parties In the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Q.34. Please provides the details of the bank A/c are maintained by M/s Tuni Textiles Mills Ltd since 01/04/2009. Ans. Sir, I am providing you the details of the bank Alc as Annexure-2 to this statement. No other bank A/c was operational in this period. Q.38. As per the books of account, the cash expenses have been booked till 08/05/2015 and the cash In hand as on 08/05/2015 was Rs.23,96,019/- In such a scenario what was the need to withdraw further cash of Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.05.2015, Rs.8,00,000 on 11.05.2015 and Rs.2,00,OOO/- on 30.05.2015? Please comment. Ans. Sir, there are certain expenses paid to the workers which are yet to be entered in the books. As stated above, I will reconcile the same and provide you the details In due course. Q.35. It is seen from the trial balance (Annexure-3 to this statement) provided by you as on 02/06/2015, the cash In hand is Rs 35,96,019.36/-. However during the course of this survey action at this premise at 63/71, 3rd Floor, Dadiseth Aglary Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbal-2, no physical cash has been found. Please explain the same. Please state, who is the authorized person in M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd to withdraw cash from the bank. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; (signed) [unquote] 2. The above features and statement of the promoter clearly indicate that the entire transactions were merely accommodation entries taken for the purpose of such bogus Long Term Capital Gain made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged LTCG, the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.67,24,391/- and huge amounts were brought into the books without payment of any taxes. I find it pertinent to mention here that In CIT Vs NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd on 22 November, 2013, the Hon'ble Delhi High court has held ..... "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. When a fact is alleged and stated before the Assessing Officer by an assessee, he must and should examine and verify, when in doubt or when the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntions and issues should reflect application of mind on the relevant aspects. When an assessee does not produce evidence or tries to avoid appearance before the Assessing Officer, it necessarily creates difficulties and prevents ascertainment of true and correct facts as the Assessing Officer Is denied advantage of the contention or factual assertion by the assessee before him. In case an assessee deliberately and intentionally falls to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer with the desire to prevent Inquiry or Investigation, an adverse view should be taken". 3. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the decision of ITAT Bombay Bench 'B' (ITA No.614/Bom/87 A.Y. 1983-84) In the case of M/s. Mont Blane Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the word 'evidence' as used in sec. 143(3) covered circumstantial evidence also. The word 'evidence' as used in sec.143(3) obviously could not be confined to direct evidence. The word 'evidence' was comprehensive enough to cover the circumstantial evidence also. Under the tax jurisprudence, the word 'evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidence from the Investigation report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be Ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (supra) held that what was meant by saying that evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income-tax Act,1961, was that the rigors of Rules of evidence, contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable; but that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking the principles of Evidence Act, In proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. It was further held buy the Hon'ble Apex Court that all that Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 did, was to embody a salutary principle of common law, jurisprudence viz, where a person was found in possessing of anything, the onus o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee about the nature and source thereof Is, In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such case there Is prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being unrebutted, can be used against him by holding that it is a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably . .......... HavIng regard to the conduct of the appellant as disclosed in her sworn statement as well as other material on the record, an Inference could reasonably be drawn that the winning tickets were purchased by the appellant after the event. The majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. It could not be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts had been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts were Income of the appellant from other sources was not based on evidence.'" CIRCUMSTANTIA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry, drawing of suitable Inferences and estimation of facts is Inevitable. Courts generally will not interfere with such estimate of facts, unless the Inferences or estimates are perverse or capricious. 6.15. The Assessee's technical contentions about admissibility and reliance on material available on the AO's record are In the nature of contentions challenging criminal or civil liabilities In a court of law. We are dealing with a process of adjudication of assesses tax liability i.e. assessment under Income Tax Act rather than conducting criminal or civil court proceedings. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra) no 'lis' is involved in adjudication of tax liability. The Assessee's contention that there was no new material before the AD after the CIT(A)'s setting aside order cannot be accepted. New information and material did Indeed come on record. In our view, in a sensitive matter like this, even a single clue or revelation can be of great Importance. To reverse the order of the AO on this technical plea will amount to taking a lopsided view of the proceedings. Besides, the JPC has underlined the Importance of Report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s thereby treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. The ld DR drew our attention to a voluminous exercise undertaken by the ld AO involving a long drawn process of stock market prices rigging in collusion with the various entry operators. The ld DR argued that the assessee had made investment in shares of the aforesaid companies not having any sound financial position or business activity so as to justify the long term capital gains to this extent. The cases of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR (SC) were quoted in support to plead that both the lower authorities have made it clear in their respective order(s) about the assessee having acted in collusion with various entry operators for the purpose of bogus long term capital gains in issue. There is no dispute that assessee having derived the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG in short) on transfer of shares held in Nikki Global Finance Ltd and S R K Industries Ltd. The ld DR did not controvert the findings given by the co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal in assessee's favour in the case of Smt Madhu Killa vs ACIT in ITA No. 834/Kol/2018 for Asst Year 2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that the AO erred in recording a finding of fact that the assessee had made the purchase of M/s. NFGL not through Stock Exchange but it was an off market transaction. We find that the assessee had purchased the shares of M/s. NFGL through registered broker M/s. M. Prasad & Co. which was a registered stock broker of the Bombay Stock Exchange and on 13.06.2012 assessee purchased 25000 shares at Rs.128.25 per share on which STT was paid and the total transaction of Rs.32,21,213.10 was paid through account payee cheque to the registered broker and the shares were deposited in the demat account (D. P. Stock HLDG Corp of India Ltd.) The following other documents were also filed before the authorities below: i) Copy of balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2013 (FY 2012-13 corresponding to AY 2013-14) along with details of investments (page nos. 4 and 5 of paper book) wherein 25000 shares of M/s. NFGL of value of Rs.32,21,269.18 is reflected and we note that the assessee had made investment in 30 no. of different shares including that of L&T, Reliance, TISCO, Infosys, ICICI, Infotech etc. and had investments altogether of Rs.87,44,010.73 which has been duly reflected in page 4 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. The ld AR submitted that the AO on pages 6-9 of the assessment order had merely stated that the Investigation Wing and SEBI conducted some inquiries in respect of some other Companies and as per the report prepared by them, certain patterns and features were identified by them and as per the AO such patterns and features were emerging in the case related to the shares of the Company (i.e. M/s. NFGL) which the assessee dealt with. However save and except making a passing remark or mere reference to so called patterns, there is nothing in the assessment order from which it can be found that the Assessee or the Company (M/s. NFGL) or the Brokers were adversely named/commented upon in the report of investigation. According to ld AR, the AO identified 10-11 adverse features on page 6-7 of the Assessment order, however he wondered as to how these features were relating to the Company (M/s. NFGL) in the case of assessee was not at all demonstrated. Thus according to ld AR, there was no material whatsoever to hold that the Company (M/s. NFGL) dealt by the assessee was having such pattern or features. It was submitted that the AO disallowed the assessee's claim of LTCG on s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all the observations, conclusions and findings of the lower authorities are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. According to ld AR, it is trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion howsoever strong it may be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai-Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under: 46. ......... Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and the sale of shares were also reflected in Demat account statements. The sale of shares suffered STT, brokerage etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the transactions were bogus. The ld AR referred to the following judgments of Jurisdictional High Court:- (i) 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 support huge losses claimed in the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were stage managed. The Hon'ble High Court held that the opinion of the AO that the assessee generated a sizeable amount of loss out of prearranged transactions so as to reduce the quantum of income liable for tax might have been the view expressed by the ld AO but he miserably failed to substantiate that. The High Court held that the transactions were at the prevailing price and therefore the suspicion of the AO was misplaced and not substantiated. (ii) CIT V. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Limited [2013] 40 taxmann.com 439 (Cal) - In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that on the basis of a suspicion howsoever strong it is not possible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 9. The ld AR submitted before us that where the purchase and sale transactions are supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements etc., and when the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by the ld AO in earlier years, the same could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT - [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal - [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TYA No. 32/Agr/2007 (Agra ITAT) 11. The ld AR further submitted 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 report of the Investigation Wing to the effect that the assessee, the Companies dealt in and/or his broker was a party to the price rigging or manipulation of price in BSE. The ld AR referred to the following judgments in support of this contention wherein under similar facts of the case it was held that the AO was not justified in refusing to allow the benefit under section 10(38) of the Act and to assess the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act :- (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT - ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT - [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 12. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee's claim o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee and/or the brokers and/or the Company in which the assessee dealt with to adversely hold that the assessee was a beneficiary to the modus operandi adopted by different entities / brokers / entry operators. The ld AR submitted that, in view of the aforesaid judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal, various case laws relied on by the AO against the assessee are irrelevant in as much as the said orders are based on conclusions drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidences only without any material evidence on record and cannot be applied in the case in hand because assessee has discharged the burden of proof by producing relevant legally admissible evidence, which the AO could not find fault with. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)/AO and does not want us to interfere in the impugned order. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. AR in the assessment order at para 3.13 the AO has stated in sub-para 'c' that "the assessee purchased shares a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Bombay Stock Exchange M. Prasad & Co. We also note from perusal of pages 20-23 of paper book which is the extract of pass book of assessee in Punjab National Bank wherein we note that assessee had received sale consideration through bank transaction and we verified the contract note of sale placed at pages 7 to 17 and tallied the entries of sale consideration received by the assessee in her bank account and find it to be correct. We on perusal of page 24, which is the transaction cum holding statement of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. find that the share of M/s. NFGL was held in De-mat account. We note from a perusal of page 26, which is the transaction statement of Demat account shows that M/s. NFGL's shares of Rs.25,000/- by inter depositing transfer on 15.06.2012. A perusal of page 30 of paper book, which is the transactional statement of Demat account corroborate the sale of scrips of M/s. NFGL (from 07.08.2013 - 30.10.2013). A perusal of pages 34-36 of paper book, which is the ledger of assessee in the books of share broker (01.04.2014 to 31.03.2014) corroborates the sale transaction of scrips of M/s. NFGL. 17. The assessee had sold the shares on 05.08.2013 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO on verification finds that the documents produced by the assessee is false or fabricated, then the AO should bring his adverse findings to the notice of the assessee and confront her with the adverse material/findings. Then again the onus will shift to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Here, in the present case is concerned, the AO after going through the documents, failed to return a finding that documents produced by assessee to substantiate the yield of LTCG was false or fabricated. The facts of the case as discussed, and the evidence adduced by the assessee, support that the transaction made by the assessee through registered stock broker through Bombay Stock Exchange, after remitting STT and all payments were transacted through bank and the shares were held in De mat account, has to be accepted in the absence of any other material to suggest an adverse view. The AO/Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting legally admissible evidence and wrongly took adverse view against the claim of assessee based on surmises, suspicion and conjecture. This action of AO/Ld. CIT(A) is akin to convert "Proof into no proof." We note that AO while describing the modus operandi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a scenario, to paint the entire share transaction of M/s. NFGL which yielded high capital gain as bogus is not correct without materials to support such an adverse finding. We note in the light of the aforesaid relevant evidences, the action of the AO and CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances and human conduct and preponderance of probability against the assessee. For that we rely on the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) for this proposition. The various facets of the contention of the ld. AR(supra), to rope in the assessee and for drawing adverse inferences, which remain unproved based on the evidence available on record are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. 18. At the cost of repetitions, we find that the transactions of the sale of shares by the assessee was duly supported by relevant evidences including contract notes, demat statement, bank account reflecting the transactions, stock brokers have confirmed the transactions, the stock exchange have confirmed the transactions, the shares have been sold on the online platform of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....servation and conclusion are merely based on information. Therefore on such basis, no disallowance can be made and accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. This ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed." We agree with the reasoning of the tribunal on this point also. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The suggested question, in our opinion do not raise any substantial question of law. 19. In the light of the documents furnished i.e. (i to v & i to iii) in Para 3(supra) we find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to have entered into any illegal actions/ modus-operand prohibited by law as alleged 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 supported with material evidences which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the c....