TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale proceeds of sale of shares. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee had purchased 2000 shares of M/s. Global Capital Market Ltd. @ Rs. 63 per share on 8.9.2009. The above said shares were split into 1:10 ratio. Accordingly, the assessee received 20000 shares of the above said company. The assessee sold 10000 shares @ Rs. 14.75 per share in A.Y. 2011-12 and sold remaining 10000 shares @ Rs. 24.86 per share in A.Y. 2012-13. The total sales consideration received in the above said two years was Rs. 1,47,500/- and Rs. 2,48,683/- respectively. 3. The Assessing Officer received information from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pectively as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 5. The assessee challenged the above said addition by filing appeal before the learned CIT(A). The first appellate authority noticed that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were carried out on recognized stock exchange Sanjay Mahabir Maheshka through registered broker. Further purchase and sale of shares have been carried out through the Demat Account of the assessee. Accordingly he agreed with the submissions of the assessee that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the transactions. The learned CIT(A) further placed reliance on the following case laws :- * ITO Vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF) (ITA No. 4861/Mum/2014) (Mum-Tri) * CIT Vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Power (2015) 55 taxman.com 108(Bom). The decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the above said case is extracted below:- "3. Mr.Sureshkumar seriously complained that such finding rendered concurrently should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. In further Appeal, the Tribunal proceeded not by analyzing this material and concluding that findings of fact concurrently rendered by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner are perverse. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that onus was on the Department to nail the Assessee through a proper evidence and that there was some cash transaction through these suspected brokers, on whom there was an investigation conducted by the Department. Once the onus on the Depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence and the contents of the report of the Investigation carried out in paras 20, 20.1, 20.2 and 21 of his order, what was important and vital for the purpose of the present case was whether the transactions in shares were genuine or sham and bogus. If the purchase and sale of shares are reflected in the Assessee's DMAT account, yet they are termed as arranged transactions and projected to be real, then, such conclusion which has been reached by the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer required a deeper scrutiny. It was also revealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that the Calcutta Stock Exchange records showed that the shares were purchased for code numbers S003 and R121 of Sagar Trade Pvt Ltd. and Rockey Mark....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nline Ltd for the total consideration of Rs.25,93,150/-. These shares were sold and how they were sold, on what dates and for what consideration and the sums received by cheques have been referred extensively by the Tribunal in para 10. A copy of the DMAT account, placed at pages 36 & 37 of the Appeal Paper Book before the Tribunal showed the credit of share transaction. The contract notes in Form-A with two brokers were available and which gave details of the transactions. The contract note is a system generated and prescribed by the Stock Exchange. From this material, in para 11 the Tribunal concluded that this was not mere accommodation of cash and enabling it to be converted into accounted or regular payment. The discrepancy pointed out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....150/-. Barring the figure of loss that is stated to have been taken, no distinguishable feature can be or could be placed on record. For the same reasons, even this additional question cannot be termed as substantial question of law." 7. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has considered an identical issue in yet another case of PCIT vs. Ziauddin A Siddique (Income tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2017 dated 4th March, 2022) and relevant discussions made by Hon'ble Bombay High Court are extracted below:- "2. We have considered the impugned order with the assistance of learned counsels and we have no reason to interfere. There is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares of the alleged penny st....