TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 66,28,161/- being sale consideration on sale of shares listed on recognized stock exchange as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.1. That while sustaining the aforesaid addition and denying the exemption learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, appellant was owner of equity shares of a listed company which had been held by it for a period exceeding 12 months and the same were sold on recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, resulting into a long term capital gain and therefore the long term capital gain accrued to the assessee on transfer of long term 'capital asset' was not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 2.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the evidence tendered by the appellant to support the claim of sale of shares and hence, findings mechanically recorded on borrowed inference in disregard of evidence and based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations are misconceived and, misplaced. 2.3 That the learned Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n perusal of Grounds of Appeal, it was observed that the present appeal can be heard on the basis of material held on record and after hearing Ld. DR. Accordingly, the appeal was heard and being disposed of by this order. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income on 21.10.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 28,45,390/- from salary, house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- earned from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for Rs. 33,418/-; sold the same for Rs. 66,61,579/- and thereby earned a whopping capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/-. Apprehending the capital gain as suspicious, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued from time to time. During assessment-proceeding, the Ld. AO asked the assessee to prove the capital gain, in response to which the assessee made a detailed submission. Observing that the assessee has made an unrealistic non-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter some time on the rise of rates he has sold such scripts. It is also observed that assessee was unaware with the company's book results and its financial status. It is also noted that increase in the prices of the share of M/s Lifeline Drugs in just one and half year was approx 19834% is total unrealistic. 4. The assessee has been confronted with all the evidence gathered and the issues mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs at Para 6 of this order. The explanation of the assessee is general in nature that as the transaction is through Stock Exchange and the payment is by cheque, the transactions should be treated as genuine. The background of the scheme given in the beginning of the order clearly shows that both the requirements are in built in the scheme and does not ipso facto prove genuineness of transaction. The SEBI after thorough investigation has certified that such transactions are rigged and are carried out to convert Black money into white. That being so, the credit in the bank account of the assessee cannot be treated as explained and is therefore, liable to be added under section 68 of the Act. The evidence gathered has to be evaluated in the background....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. " That genuineness could validly be tested on the ground or principle of preponderance of human probabilities, which could thus form a valid ground or parameter for determining. the genuineness, stands since settled by the apex court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein the apex court, in declaring the transaction as non-genuine, discarded a host of documentary evidences filed or relied upon by the assessee-appellant. That documentary evidences are not by themselves conclusive, and the truth of the matter or the documents could be determined on the basis of or on the anvil of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case is well settled, and reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC). 5. In view of the discussion made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following facts become manifestly clear:- i. That some unscrupulous operators in the capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by 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 said evidence being un-rebutted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee the Department cannot, however, act unreasonably" 6. Further, the transaction is found to be not genuine in in view of the following observations and facts: i) The financials of the penny stock Lifeline Drugs and Pharma and movement of the price is abrupt, unrealistic and not based upon any realistic parameters. ii) In the similar circumstances, the honorable Gauhati High Court of CIT Vs Sanghamitra Bharali(361 ITR 481) had held that the capital gains are sham transactions entered only to give colour of genuineness and therefore, held that the capital gain arising out of these transactions cannot be believed as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. The same is therefore chargeable to tax u/ s 68 of IT Act. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." The aforesaid section merely codifies what was the state of law prior to its enactment. Even when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was in force it had been held in all judicial pronouncements that if cash credits are found in the books of account of the assessee and no explanation about the nature and source thereof is given or the explanation is not found satisfactory then the same could be charged to income-tax as income from undisclosed sources. It is not unknown that in order to avoid payment of tax an amount may be credited in the books of account in such a manner which may not disclose its true nature or source ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e where one of the two contending parties has to introduce evidence and in the absence of such evidence, it is assumed that the party has failed. Sometimes in the statute itself it is provided that, burden of proof will be on the assessee or the assessing officer. However, there is difference between 'Burden of Proof' and 'Onus of Proof' as 'Burden of Proof' lies on the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus may shift. As per section 103 of the Evidence Act, Burden is on that person w he wishes the court to believe in the existence of a particular fact. For instance, when a person who says positively that another had notice of a fact but does not adduce evidence to prove that positive fact, the court cannot hold that the other person had such notice, save that other person admits that he had notice. A support for above conclusion can be found in the following legal dictum: In the absence of any direct evidence, the quasi-judicial authorities can base their conclusions on the basis of what are known as notorious facts, bearing in mind the principles of section 144 of the Evidence Act. They can assume that, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be considered - to use the words of Lord Mansfield in Blatch Vs. Archer according to the proof which "it was in the power of one side to prove and in the power of the other to have contradicted". Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible for the Department to prove facts, which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden. 9. In view of the detailed discussion made above, the total amount of Rs. 66,28,161/- is added under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately and willfully concealed its unaccounted income, and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing the inaccurate particulars also initiated. Addition: Rs. 66,28,161/- 10. Addition on account of unexplained expenses U/S 69C of Rs. 1,99,847/-: As per the discussion made in the earlier para 3 above, it has been concluded 'that assessee has managed the bogus LTCG transaction to convert the unaccounted money available with him by investment in the penny stock w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary (an Individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price of the stock and gradually raise its price many times, often 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. When the price reaches the desired level the beneficiary who bought the shares at a nominal price, is made to sell it to a dummy paper company of the operator. For this, unaccounted cash is provided by the beneficiary, which is routed through a few layers of paper companies by the operator and finally is parked with the dummy paper company that will buy the shares. 4.2.2 The result of the investigation in brief is as under: I. Individuals throughout the country inc1entified who have taken such bogus entries of LTCG amounting to several crores from 2010 to 2014. II. The result of the enquiry was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... findings in the case of the scrip traded by the appellant i.e. M/s Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd.; IX. The SEBI in fact suspended trading of the above scrip due to surveillance measures. This also shows artificial tinkering with the prices of the shares of the company. 4.2.3 On going through the above information, the appellant indulged in bogus long term capital gain and claimed the amount as exempt u/s 10(38) of the LT. Act by way of taking accommodation entry. The purchase of shares is an off market transaction. The appellant is a not regular investor in the shares and invested in shares for the first time and earned return of more than 200 times within a short span of period which IS extremely unusual. The shares in which the appellant traded are identified as Penny Shares by Investigation Wing of Kolkata. 4.2.4. The reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Vs PCIT (ITA No.18/2017 Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) The assessee had purchased shares of two penny stocks of Kolkata based companies i.e., 8000 shares at the rate of Rs.5.50 per share on 08.08.2003....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer was justified - Held, yes 4. Usha Chandresh Shah Vs ITO [2014-TIOL-1459-I.T.A.T.-MUM Where Hon'ble of ITAT Mumbai held that in this case assessee could not produce the copies of share certificates and copies of share transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of the company was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEEI and the broker Sanju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicted for manipulating the prices of penny stock shares. The tax authorities have rightly applied the test of human probabilities to examine the claim of purchase and sale of shares made by the assessee. The CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order of the AD by applying the test of human probabilities 5. Ratnakar M Pujari Vs ITO [2016-TIOL-1746-ITATMUM] Where Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held that a transaction of 'off market purchase of share' for which payments were made in cash and the brokers had issued pre dated contract notes, is liable to be treated as bogus transaction, and hence such cash receipts are liable to be treated as 'unexplained cash receipts' 4.2.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the Bombay Stock Exchange by certain persons working as a syndicate in order to provide entries of tax exempt bogus Long Term Capital Gains to large number of persons in lieu of unaccounted cash. The basic objective of this racket is to convert black money into white without payment of Income Tax. The unaccounted cash of such persons [beneficiaries] is utilized to purchase shares of such companies at a very high artificially inflated market price. This practice is generally called Accommodation Entry Scam, as the activities of such persons are carried out with prime objective of accommodating unaccounted cash of beneficiaries into their regular books of accounts without paying any tax on the same. Some of the listed companies, directly or indirectly owned by operators and whose share prices have been apparently manipulated by the syndicate of operators, which have come to adverse notice of the Income Tax Department, are as under: SL No Script Code Script Name Full Name of Penny Stock 36 506113 Lifeline Dru Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. Learned DR also filed a copy the Order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) by which the SEBI h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f and proximity of time between the two which are relevant factors. Therefore, in our considered view the methodology adopted by the department cannot be faulted. 70. It was argued by Mr. Bagaria that in the decision in Balram Garg, the decision in K.R. Ajmera has been overruled. To examine the correctness of the said submission, we have carefully gone through the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 47 of the judgment in Balram Garg which reads as follows: "Lastly, we have given our anxious consideration to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel of the Respondent viz. SEBI vs. Kishore R. Ajmera [(2016) 6 SCC 368] and Dushyant N. Dalal vs. SEBI [(2017) 9 SCC 660]. Suffice it to hold that these cases are distinguishable on the facts of the present case, as the former is not a case of insider trading but that of Fradulent/Manipualtive Trade Practices; and the latter case relates to Interest Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shares of these companies which are all classified as penny stocks companies. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the copy of the investigation report has not been furnished, the persons from whom statements have been recorded have not been produced for cross examination are all contention which has to necessarily fail for several reasons which we have set out in the proceedings. To reiterate, the assessee we not named in the report and when the assessee makes the claim for exemption the onus of proof is on the assessee to prove the genuinity. Unfortunately, the assessees have been harping upon the transactions done by them and by relying upon the documents in their hands to contend that the transactions done were genuine. Unfortunately, the test of genuinity needs to be established otherwise, the assessees are lawfully bound to prove the huge LTCG claims to be genuine. In other words if there is information and data available of unreasonable rise in the price of the shares of these penny stock companies over a short period of time of little more than one year, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of shares needs to be established and the onus is on the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ternational, it is submitted that the revenue cannot start with the question as to whether the transaction was a tax deferment/avoidance but the revenue should apply the "look at" test to ascertain its true legal nature and that genuine strategic planning had not been abandoned. Further the revenue has to establish on the basis of facts and circumstances surrounding the transactions that the impugned transaction is a sham or tax avoidance. In this regard Mr. Bagaria ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH also referred to the decision in the case of Hill Country Properties Limited Versus Goman Agro Farms Private Limited 90 and also the decision in IRC Versus Duke of Westminster 91 . 74. In our considered view we need not travel thus far and wide to examine as to how and what is said and what is not said in McDowell Mr. Soumen Bhattacharya referred to the decision for the simple reason, to point out that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the frame work of law as colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning which cannot be encouraged. Therefore what we are required to see is whether the claim made by the assesees before us are legitimate and whether there ....