TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: ITA No.1121/Ahd/2018 (Asst.Year 2014-15) 1. That Hon. CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 10,40,265 u/s 68 of the act. 2. That Hon.CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming that long term capital gain earned by the appellant is not genuine. On the facts of the case, no addition should be made u/s. 68 of the Act and long term capital gain should be treated as exempt as claimed by the appellant. ITA No.961/Ahd/2019 (Asst.Year 2015-16) 1. That Hon. CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 58,10,231 u/s 68 of the act. 2. That Hon. CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming that long term capital gain earned by the appellant is not genuine. On the facts of the case, no addition should be made u/s. 68 of the Act and long term capital gain should be treated as exempt as claimed by the appellant. 3. The assessee, as is evident from the above, is aggrieved by the long term capital gains returned by it to tax on sale of shares, being held to be bogus and mere accommodation entries by the Revenue authorities. The shares sold in both years were of the same company i.e. "KAPPAC PHARMA LTD" and basis with the AO/CIT(A) for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee to prove genuineness of the transaction, more particularly, since the huge price rise in the shares sold was not shown to be supported by financials of the company, and there was no justification for the same, and considering large scale scam unearthed by the department, where entry operators and brokers involved had admitted to providing accommodation entries through bogus long term capital gain on sale of shares. 6. We have heard both the parties , gone through the orders of the authorities below and the case laws cited before us. The facts, which are not disputed is that the assessee has earned long term capital gain on sale of 1500 shares of KAPPAC PHARM LTD. in Asst.Year 2014-15 sold for a consideration of Rs. 10,42,425/- and in Asst.Year 2015-16 13500 shares of the same company were sold for a consideration of Rs. 58,10,231/-. The AO has relied on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkatta, which found these shares to be penny stock i.e. of no value as such, but manipulated by accommodation entry operators in collusion with the brokers to artificially rig their prices resulting in long term capital gains to the beneficiaries. He specifically mentions the shares ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the ring of suspicion. The findings in this regard by the Hon'ble High court are at para-43 to 51 of the order as under: "43. From the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee Smt. Swati Bajaj, we find that the genesis of the issue commenced from an investigation report submitted by the Directorate of Income Tax, Investigation, Kolkata (DIT). The investigation report has been prepared by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Investigation Unit -II and III, Kolkata. Before we examine the report, we shall deal with the objection raised by Mr. Surana, learned senior advocate as regards the effect of such report, whether at all it is a "report" and can the assessing officer or the CIT (A) can proceed on the basis of such "report". The above submission is sought to be buttressed by placing reliance on the decision in Sesa Sterlite Ltd. and Odeon Builders (supra). 44. In Sesa Sterilite Ltd. (supra), all the assessees were traders and exporters of iron ore and some of them were also miners and processors of the ore. Allegations of large-scale illegal mining and trading necessitated the Government of India to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under section 3 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7] 4 SCC 608, it was held that the report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry may or may not be accepted by the authority appointing the Commission of Inquiry. In the background of these findings, the Court held that the re-opening of the assessment could not have been done exclusively based on the report of the Commission of Inquiry. 46. Mr. Surana, learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kavita Gupta and submitted that the report of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Investigation (DDIT) cannot be the basis of the assessment more so when the report was not furnished to the assessee, there is no finding as against the assessee in the report which was produced for the first time before this Court during the course of the arguments of these appeals. It is submitted in Smt. Kavita Gupta, it was held that a mere report of the DDIT suggesting that some of the gifts received by the assessee therein may be non-genuine and that to when not confronted to the assessee was not sufficient to conclude that the gifts obtained by the assessee were not genuine. It was further argued that the report of the DDIT is a third-party information whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in Kavita Gupta (supra) the challenge was whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act was justified in the eye of law. In the said case, the Court noted the legal position that when an inquiry is launched under section 143(3) of the Act, the findings will not depend only upon the presumption, the onus of proof could not be cast entirely upon the revenue and such onus would shift on the revenue only if the assessee produced some material to show that what she states may be correct. On facts the Court, in the said case, found that the onus had shifted to the revenue as the assessment was completed by the assessing officer after inquiry and in such factual position, the Court held that a mere report of the Deputy Director (Intelligence) suggesting that some of the gifts obtained by the assessee therein were not genuine and such report having been not confronted to the assessee therein was not sufficient to conclude the gifts were not genuine. The said decision is distinguishable for several reasons. Firstly, the Court considered as to whether the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by the CIT (A) was justi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for by many individuals and legal entities in the country in foreign banks. The degree of control on such transactions by the states was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following terms: If the State is soft to a large extent, especially in terms of the unholy nexus between the law makers, the law keepers, and the law breakers, the moral authority, and also the moral incentives, to exercise suitable control over the economy and the society would vanish. Large unaccounted for monies are generally an indication of that. These matters before us relate to issues of large sums of unaccounted for monies, allegedly held by certain named individuals, and loose associations of them; consequently we have to express our serious concerns from a constitutional perspective. The amount of unaccounted for monies, as alleged by the Government of India itself is massive. The show-cause notices were issued a substantial length of time ago. The named individuals were very much present in the country. Yet, for unknown, and possible unknowable, though easily surmisable, reasons the investigations into the matter proceeded at a laggardly pace. Even the named individua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....progressive. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the Income-tax department for causing an investigation and any finding rendered pursuant to such investigation could very well be a material to commence further proceedings under the Act against the assessees who fall within the ring of suspicion. Mr. Surana, learned Senior Counsel would contend that unlike in the cases relied upon by him, there is nothing to show that the Government of India or the CBDT had directed conduct of an investigation by the DDIT who is the lowest in the rung of officers in the investigation wing of the Income-tax department. To examine, this we had perused the preamble portion of the report. The report has been prepared by the DDIT and it has been forwarded to the DGIT (Investigation) in all the states in the country as well as the Director General of International Tax, Mumbai. The report prepared by the DDIT is on behalf of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, and this is evident from the report dated 27-4-2015. Therefore, to discredit the report as if to be initiated by the DDIT on his own accord is in an incorrect submission. The learned senior counsel referred to the penultimate paragraph of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue is that the assessments cannot be held to be illegal merely on the grounds that the copy of the report was not furnished as the respective assessing officers have clearly mentioned as to the nature of investigation done by the department and as the report itself states that the investigation commenced not from the assessees end but the individuals who dealt with these penny stocks who were targeted. It is equally true invariably in all cases, the statement of the stock brokers, the entry operators or the Directors of the various penny stock companies does not directly implicate the assessee. If such being the situation, the assessee cannot be heard to say that the copy of the entire report should have been furnished to him, the person from whom the statements were recorded should have been produced for cross examination as admittedly there is nothing to implicate the assessee Smt. Swati Bajaj of insider trading or rigging of share prices. But the allegation against the assessee is that the claim for LTCG/LTCL is bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in public interest. Further by referring to the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh [2020] SCC Online SC 847, it was held that the "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant, it should exist as a matter of fact or to be cast upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice. 58. Therefore, the assessees have to specifically point out as to how they were prejudiced on account of non furnishing of the investigation report in its entirety, failure to produce the persons from whom the statements were recorded for being cross examined would cause prejudice to the assessee as nowhere in the report the names of the assessees feature. The investigation report states that the investigation has not commenced from the individuals but it has commenced who had dealt with the penny stocks, concept of working backwards. This is a very significant factor to be remembered. Therefore, there has been absolute anonymity of the assessee in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e light of the above conclusion we hold that the decision in Gorkha Security Services (supra) does not lend any support to the case of the assessees and is distinguishable. 63. The copy of the recommendations of SIT on black money as contained in the third SIT report as published by the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated 24-7-2015 was placed before us with reference to the misuse of exemption on LTCG for money laundering and the recommendations are as hereunder: A company with very poor financial fundaments in terms of past income or terms of past income or turnover is able t raise huge capital allotment of Preferential allotment of shares is made to various entities. There is a shop rise in price of scrip once the preferential allotment is done. This is normally achieved through circuading shares of shares among a select group of companies. These groups of companies often have common promoters/directors. The scrips with thus artificially inflated price rise are offloaded through companies whose funding is provided by the same set people who want to convert black money into while. There is an urgent need for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estigation) of all the states of the country. It is thereafter the concerned assessing officers have been informed to consider as to the bonafideness and genuineness of the claims of LTCG/LTCL of the respective assessees qua the findings which emanated during the investigation conducted on the individuals who dealt with the penny stocks. Therefore, the assessments have commenced by the assessing officers calling upon the assessee to explain the genuineness of the claim of LTCG/LTCL made by them. In all the assessment orders, substantial portion of the investigation report has been noted in full. A careful reading of the some would show that the assessee has not been named in the report. If such be the case, unless and until the assessee shows and proves that she/he was prejudiced on account of such report/statement mere mentioning that non-furnishing of the report or non-availability of the person for cross examination cannot vitiate the proceedings. The assessees have miserably failed to prove the test of prejudice or that the test of fair hearing has not been satisfied in their individual cases. In all the cases, the assessees have been issued notices under sections 143(2) and 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny stocks companies about the directors of the companies and also the stock brokers, entry operators and others who have been named in the report. It is an admitted case that the names of the assessees do not figure in the report. Therefore, non-furnishing of the report has in no manner prejudiced the rights of the assessees to discharge the onus cast upon them in terms of section 68 of the Act. 68. It is equally not in dispute that whatever information which was required to be made known to the assessee has been informed to the assessee by the assessing officer by issuance of a notice to each of the assesses to which they have responded by submitting their replies. Therefore, in the absence of any prejudice caused to the assessee on account of non-furnishing of the entire report, the assessees cannot be a heard to say that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and their right to defend themselves was in any manner affected. At this juncture, it would be of much relevance to refer to the decision in K. R. Ajmera (supra). The question of law which arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to what is the degree of proof required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint to some kind of a fraudulent/manipulative exercise with prior meeting of minds. Such meeting of minds so as to attract the liability of the brokers / sub-broker and may be between the brokers/sub-broker and the client or it could be between two brokers/sub- brokers engaged in the buy and sell transactions. Further it was pointed out that when over a period of time such transactions have been made between the same set of brokers or a group of brokers a conclusion can be a reasonable reached that there is a concerted effort on the part of the brokers concerned to indulge in synchronized trade the consequences of which is large volumes of fictitious trading resulting in unnatural rise in hiking the price/value of the scrips. In the said case, it was argued that on a screen- based trading the identity of the second party to be a client or the broker is not known to the first party/client or broker. This argument was rejected as being irrelevant. It was pointed out that the screen-based identity system keeps the identity of the parties anonymous and it will be too naïve to rests the final conclusions on said basis which overlooks a meeting of minds elsewhere. Further it was he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, is dealt with at para 75 to 88 of the order , holding that the burden in the said cases where the facts showed phenomenal and fanciful rise in shares in a short span of time and thereafter steep fall, all unsupported by the financials of the companies , was heavy and could not be said to be discharged by filing mere documentary evidences of sale and purchase of shares. The- relevant portion of the order isas under: "75. While it may be true that M/s. Swati Bajaj, Mr. Girish Tigwani or other assessees who are before us could have been regular investors, investors could or could not have been privy to the information or modus adopted. In our considered view, what is important is that it is the assessee who has to prove the claim to be genuine in terms of section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short span of time and more importantly after a period of 17 to 22 months, thereafter has been a steep fall which has led to huge claims of STCL. Therefore, un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission. On the aspect of burden of proof, it was pointed out that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within exemption provided by the Act, lies upon the assessee. With regard to the effect of Section 68 of the Act, it was held that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee in previous year, the sum 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. It was further held that in such a case, the prima facie evidence against the assessee namely, the receipt of money and if he fails to rebut, the said evidence being unrebuted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeds to discuss the facts of the case where the dispute was whether the winnings of the assessee t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in cases where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of sums found credited in the books is not satisfactory shows, prima facie evidence against the assessee namely, the receipt of money, the burden is on the assessee to rebut the sum and if he fails to rebut, it can be held against the assessee that it was a receipt of an income nature. Further, it was held that in the absence of satisfactory explanation of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer may assume that cash credit entries in the books represented income from undisclosed sources. In the said case also the Court took note of the fact that the Assessing Officer considered various surrounding circumstances before rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee which finding was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it was based on the material available on record and not on any conjectures and surmises. 81. In Roshan Di Hatti (supra), it was held that the onus of proving the source of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him, if he disputes, it is not liable to tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Further, the manner and mode of conducting assessment proceedings has to be left to the discretion of the Assessing Officer and the same should be just, fair and should not cause any harassment to the assessee. Further, it was held that the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable but the Assessing Officer being a quasi judicial authority, must take care and caution to ensure that the decision is reasonable and satisfies the balance of equity, fairness of justice and the principle of preponderance of probabilities apply. The assessee argued that the revenue must have evidence to show circulation of money from the assessee to the third party which contention was rejected by the Court holding it to be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. GovindarajuluMudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 802 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact sour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ster, share application forms, share transfer register etc., it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by the assessee; (5) the Department would not be justified in drawing an adverse inference only because the creditor/subscriber fails or neglects to respond to its notices; (6) the onus would not stand discharged if the creditor/subscriber denies or repudiates the transaction set up by the assessee nor should the AO take such repudiation at face value and construe it, without more, against the assessee; (7) the AO is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the repudiation." 86. The Court referred to the decision in CIT v. Nova Promoters Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 217/206 Taxman 207/342 ITR 169 (Delhi) wherein it was held that in view of the link between the entry providers and incriminating evidence, mere filing of PAN, acknowledgement of IT Returns of the entry providers, bank account statements etc. where not sufficient to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act. Further it was held that credit worthiness cannot be proved by mere issue of a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamine in a judgment is the ratio and if we bear the said concept in mind, we would be guided in a proper manner. In the said decision, the judgment in SumatiDayal was referred to which decision was followed in Sanjay Kaul (supra) wherein it was held that where the assessee was not a regular investor in shares and had only invested in high risk stocks of obscure companies with no business activities or assets, which were identified as the penny stocks, the assessing officer had correctly concluded that the assessee entered into a pre-arranged sham transaction so as to convert unaccounted money into accounted money in guise of capital loss and therefore, the alleged Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) was rightly disallowed. Similar view was taken in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain (supra), in the said case the assessee had purchased shares from the penny stocks companies for a lower amount and within a year, sold such shares at higher amount and the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to why the shares in unknown company had jumped to such a higher amount in no time and also failed to provide details of persons, who purchased the said shares and the transaction was held to be....