TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. Since ten effective opportunities were given to the assessee, the Bench feels that no purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending as assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, we deem it fit to dispose of this appeal on hearing the learned Departmental Representative [hereinafter referred to as the "learned DR"] and based on materials available on record. 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is as to whether the learned CIT(Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 54,94,000/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating the sale proceeds of shares as not genuine and thereby denying exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned DR and perused the materials available on records. The assessee is an individual and has filed return of his income for assessment year 2016-17 on 31.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 2,26,190/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold 1,00,000 equity shares of M/s Cressanda Solution Ltd. The assessee had acquired 10,000 shares of M/s Smartchamps IT and Infra Ltd. for Rs. 10.00 each per share. Pursuant to the order dated 24-01-2013 of Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly applicable in income tax proceedings. The principle of "preponderance of probability" is judiciously followed as against "beyond reasonable doubts." 4.5 In the present instance, the referred Investigation Report of Investigation wing Kolkata was available on the public domain and the assessee had free access to the said documents. As regards cross examination, there are numerous rulings which support the case of revenue observing that "so long as the party charged has a fair and reasonable opportunity to see, comment and criticize the evidence, statement or record on which the charge is made against him the demands and the test of natural justice are satisfied." Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi which has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta high Court in the case of KisanLalAgarwal vs. Collector of land customs AIR 1967 and CAL 80. GTC industries vs. ACIT of Hon'ble ITAT Bombay which held that "principles of natural justice do not require formal cross examination...... Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the revenue could not have relied on any evidences which had not been subjected to cross examination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... times with minor fluctuations synchronized with rise and fall in the market to avoid regulatory glare". Further it was observed that "The investors hold these shares of the penny stock listed company which it got as a result of merger for one year (statutory lock-in period for exemption under IT Act) and then sell it to one of the shell private limited companies of the operator. The investor thus makes a LTCG of 25 times its original investment. The purchase consideration is again provided in cash by the investor which is laundered to the buyers account through a maze of shell companies as mentioned in the previous method." "The list of companies merged and the beneficiaries emanating there from is mentioned in the DDIT's report. The High Courts do sometimes refer the case to the jurisdictional CIT before passing amalgamation order. The CIT however, neither has the time nor the wherewithal/ jurisdiction to investigate. The result, the blatant tax evasion is getting stamped by the Hon'ble High Courts." In light of the above observations in the Investigation Wing's report, the facts of the present case are almost identical and squarely applicable, as far as the merge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppear reasonable, but then the careful reading of Investigation Wing Kolkata's report gives the true perspective. The predetermined plan was executed with perfection which would not in any case falter with the rules/documentation. But allowing misuse of provisions was never the intent of legislature and least of all judiciary. It is a known fact that no individual AO is fully equipped in terms of resources mainly time, to redo the entire investigation in order to prove independent application of mind. With paucity of time and tremendous pressure of completing assessment proceedings and other administrative matters, it is a Herculean task for anyone to take up the enquiry from the first to the last player in the chain. Hence, drawing upon the investigation and enquiries of another limb (Investigation wing) of the same department does not render the AO's order wrong on facts and bad in law. Based on principles on reasonableness, preponderance of probability and normal human conduct, it is only fair to holistically appreciate the mindful efforts of the Investigation Wing, SEBI and other agencies in establishing and unravelling the true intent of all the beneficiaries, incl....