TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals) and AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not granting an opportunity to cross examine/confront the person on whose confession/statement or possession of material /evidence, they presumed that the share transaction is a bogus/sham transaction. The basic principles of natural justice have been violated. As regards addition of Rs.11,23,262 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,23,262 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C pertaining to the alleged commission." 3. The issue raised in ground No.1 to 3 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs.2,24,65,230 /- by Ld. CIT(A) which was made by the AO under section 68 of the Act by rejecting the claim of the assessee in respect of long term capital gain on sale of shares under section 10(38) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.10.2015 declaring an income of Rs.13,97,910/- by claiming Rs.2,20,06,230/- as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain on sale of equity shares of M/s. Matra Kaushal Enterprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Matra Kaushal Enterprises Ltd. and accordingly rejected the claim of the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act resulting into an addition of Rs.2,24,65,230/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 21.12.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the detail submitted by the assessee by observing and holding as under: "5.1.6 Final Conclusion In view of the elaborate discussion/analysis and conclusion of the A.O. in the Assessment order, the analysis of appellant's argument, principle laid down by the decision/judgements relied upon it is clear that the appellant has misutilized the provisions of section 10(38} of the Act. It is also clear that the appellant and individual whose main source of income is not dealing in shares and purchased shares of M/s. Kaushalya Global Ltd offline from a company which was also managed by the entry operator. The company M/s, Kaushaiya Global Ltd was subsequently merged with M/s. MatraKaushal Enterpris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. ( CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 SC (at pages 545, 547). Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, M.P. and Bhopal in 50 ITR 1 (SC) held that "it is well established that the Onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income (A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 34 ITR 807 SC). Since the whole arrangement has been conducted with active connivance of entry operator/broker, the A.O. is more than fairto estimate commission only @ 5% as unexplained expenditure totaling to Rs.11,23,262/-. In view of the above I, have no reasons to interfere with the conclusion of the A.O. Thus th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment proceedings and appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the appellant filed all documents for establishing bonafide and genuineness of claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, the denial of claim of exemption made by the Ld. AO ignoring the relevant and factual documentary evidences filed by the appellant is absolutely improper and against the principle of natural justice and equity. 7.2. The ld AR, while referring to the assessment order, submits that none of the descriptions, allegations, observations, findings, statements reproduced etc in the impugned order of AO are relevant or having any cogent, collaborative, identifiable or clinching to the LTCG realized by the appellant. The ld AR submits that the appellant had never transacted with any operator or such intermediary in the process of carrying out investments and further that the alleged operators and their records do not in any manner mention any connection with appellant. The ld AR submits that the shares were duly allotted to the appellant and were recorded into the D-mat account upon such purchase/allotment. Shares were sold on BSE through regular registered brokers of assessee under screen based tradi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.4228 of 2006) wherein it was held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority whereas the statement of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounts to violation of principal of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. The ld. AR submits that it is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). 7.5. The ld AR submits that movement in prices of shares is governed by several factors without there being any nexus to the projects, projection etc and this fact gets clearly established if one refers to the present movement in shares of several companies. The Ld. AO has failed to establish any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the ratio of 1:10 on 28.04.2014 meaning thereby that per one share of Rs.10 each the assessee was allotted 10 shares of Rs.1 each. We note that the assessee has invested in these shares by making a payment through account payee cheques from the regular bank account of the assessee and were held in D-Mat account and after being held for more than 12 months these shares were sold through the recognized stock exchange through the registered brokers on 31.03.2015 at a total sale consideration of Rs.2,24,65,230/- thereby making a long term capital gain of Rs.2,20,06,230/-. Now the issue before us is whether the claim of the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act is correct or not. We also note that the company M/s. Matra Kaushal Enterprises Ltd. in which the assessee invested money and earned long term capital gain of Rs.2,20,06,230/- is a listed company on the stock exchange and subjected to various rules and regulations and compliances which has to be complied with before making any allotment to the applicant under preferential allotment process. We have also examined the various documents filed by the assessee in the paper book regarding date of purchase, allotment of equity s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red stock brokers. Pertinent to state that shares worth Rs. 50,000/- were still with the assessee as closing stocks. We also note that in the investigation carried out by the Directorate of Investigation Wing, Kolkata and also in the statements recorded of various individuals as stated hereinabove. We find that nowhere the assessee's name figured and no evidences were found during the course of search and the entire allegations were based upon the surmises and conjunctures. The shares were duly allotted to the assessee and were recorded in the D-Mat account and thereafter were sold on the Bombay Stock Exchange through the registered broker and screen based trading where the buyer and seller of the shares are not aware of each other and the fact that the consideration was paid and received through banking channels. Moreover, the authorities below have failed to establish the money trail involved in the transaction and has only guessed that assessee might have paid his own money to route the same into books of accounts. Thus we note that the finding of the AO in discussing the modus operandi of the scam and dismissing the various statements of the exit providers is only general in na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the appellate proceedings. In the case of Mukesh B. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No.6249/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 order dated 29.05.2019 the addition made under similar facts was deleted by the coordinate Bench by observing and holding as under: "6. 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. The assessee submitted the following details with regard to purchase of shares :- a) Copy of relevant extract of bank statement reflecting the payment of Rs 30 lacs made by the assessee by account payee cheque to the company directly and source thereof along with allotment letter issued by the said company (i.e GIFL) and copy of share certificate issued by GIFL to the assessee on 12.6.2012. These documents are enclosed in pages 71 to 73 of Paper Book. b) Demat account held with NKGSB Co-operative Bank Limited reflecting credit of shares purchased (enclosed in page 154 of Paper Book). c) Copy of approval letter from GIFL. d) Copy of allotment letter from GIFL for shares allotted to the assessee. e) Copy of share certificate issued by GIFL. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase and sale details together with the supporting evidences were not controverted by the revenue before us. Even the cross examination of the parties mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the assessee by the ld AO were sought by the assessee and the same were refused by the ld AO . We find that the ld AO had also placed reliance on the order passed by SEBI while concluding that the transactions carried out by the assessee in the form of sale of shares as sham and bogus. From the perusal of the SEBI order dated 25.8.2016 in the case of First Financial Services Ltd, we find that from the extracts thereon, that it was stated that M/s GIFL was involved in providing exit to the sellers of equity shares of First Financial Services Ltd and no where stated that this company was involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of capital gains by transacting its own shares through the alleged bogus operators. We also find that the SEBI had passed on order dated 8.1.2018 in the case of GIFL, wherein it was found that the name of the assessee herein or the brokers through whom the assessee transacted were not even included in the said order as parties against whom any adverse in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hare brokers vis a vis GIFL. Hence there is absolutely no iota of evidence linking the assessee or the registered brokers to even remotely allege that they were involved in artificial rigging of price of scrips which were dealt by the assessee herein. 6.4 We find that the ld AO had stated that GIFL is a company of no value. The revenue stream and the profitability chart reproduced hereinabove does not support the case of the ld AO. Moreover, the status reported by the ld AO about GIFL was in Asst Year 2008-09 which is neither the year of purchase of shares by the assessee nor the year of sale of shares in open market. Hence those findings are totally irrelevant for adjudication of the issue before us. 6.5. We find that the revenue had merely disbelieved the entire documentary evidences on record and alleged the share sale transactions made in the open market as bogus based on the statements recorded during survey, which does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MAD) assumes significance, wherein it was held that :- "An admission is an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bted . None of the documents filed by the assessee with regard to purchase and sale of shares have been found to be deficient in any manner whatsoever by the revenue. From the turnover chart stated hereinabove, it could be seen that the revenue of GIFL had increased from Rs 191 lacs as on 31.3.2012 to Rs 2487 lacs as on 31.3.2014. This goes to prove that the projections given by the said company in its invitation letter to the assessee requesting for making preferential application of shares had proved to be correct and cannot be doubted. 6.7. We find that the ld AO had furnished certain list of parties who were alleged purchasers of shares from the assessee when it was sold in the open market by the assessee. The assessee had pleaded that since the shares were sold in the open market in online platform, he is not aware of the name of the parties as to who had bought the same in the open market. The ld AO sought to issue summons to those alleged purchasers of shares u/s 131 of the Act, which remain uncomplied by those parties. Based on this, the ld AO had drawn an adverse inference against the assessee disregarding the entire documentary evidences on record and the prevail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rudent and would be done only after analyzing the entire fundamentals and financials of the investee company. It is in everybody's knowledge, that an investor would try to take calculated risks by investing his money on an unknown scrip based on certain information 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 26 months and later sold it in open market in online platform at prevailing market prices. 6.9. We find that the co-ordinate bench of Kolkata Tribunal in ITA No.354/Kol/2018 in Sanjeev Goel (HUF) vs. ITO dated 24.08.2018 on similar set of facts and circumstances had held as follows:- "4. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 5. In identical cases, the submission of the assessee, findings of the Assessing Officer, findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the conclusion of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prices of the shares fall very sharply after the shares of LTCG beneficiaries have been off loaded through the pre-arranged transactions on the Stock Exchange floor/portal to the Short Term Loss seekers or dummy paper entities. xiii. The shares of these companies are not available for buy/sell to any person outside the syndicate. This is generally ensured by way of synchronized trading by the operators amongst themselves and/or by utilizing the mechanism of upper/lower circuit of the Exchange. 7. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. 8. The First Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by giving his findings as follows:- a) The AO had placed on record the entire gamut of finding and there is no further requirement for elaboration. b) There is direct evidence to clearly indicate that the entire transaction undertaken by the assessee was merely an accommodation taken for the purpose of bogus long term capital gains to claim exempt income. The authorities such as SEBI have after investigating such abnormal price increase of certain stocks, suspended certain scrips. c) The submissions of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies Private Limited (ITA No. 105 of 2016) (Cal HC)dt. 08/05/2017 • CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal (2009 TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22 of 2009 dated 29.04.2009 11. Recently, the Kolkata 'C' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navneet Agarwal,-vs- ITO, Ward-35(3), Kolkata; I.T.A. No. 2281/Kol/2017; Assessment Year: 2014-15, while dealing with identical issue of sale of shares of M/s. Cressenda Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and had taken a calculated risk and had gained in the process and that she is not party to the scam etc., has to be controverted by the revenue with evidence. When a person claims 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t evidences that the transaction entered into by the assessee was also a collusive transaction. We, however, find that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence 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 prosec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been found against the assessee with aid of any direct evidences or material against the assessee despite the matter being investigated by various wings of the 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 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are not available for cross-examination or similar situation. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded to consider the issue on a technical plea, namely, no 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 7. In view the above, we are 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 confirmati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payments and receipts were routed through the bank. There was no evidence to indicate for instance that this was a closely 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 unfoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial evidences furnished by the assessee which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). We note that the allegations that the assessee/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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst purchases payment has been made by account payee cheque, delivery of shares were taken, contract of sale 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 no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts of this case we are bound to consider and rely on the evidence produced by 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. " 12. Consistent with the view taken therein, as the facts and circumstances of this case are same as the facts and circumstances of the cases of Navneet Agarwal (supra), we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, on account of sale of shares in the case of both the assessees. The consequential addition u/s 69C is also deleted. Accordingly both the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 6.10. It would be pertinent to address the case law relied upon by the ld DR before us on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs Pr.CIT (Nagpur) reported in (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) dated 10.4.2017 on the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Assessee on sale of the shares is more than what is declared by the Assessee. Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of the Director of M/s Richmand Securities Pvt Ltd regarding the sale transaction, the Tribunal relying on the statement of the employee of M/s Richmand Securities Pvt Ltd held that the sale transaction was genuine. 7. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the purchase and sale of shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs 1,41,08,484/- represented unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 8. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6.12. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the ld CITA was not justified in upholding the action of the ld AO in bringing the sale proceeds of shares of GIFL in the sum of Rs 7,88,77,854/- as unexplained income of the assessee treating the same as just an accommodation....