TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has traded in the scrips of M/s. Shree Shalin Textiles Limited. The above said scrip is found to be stocks in which price manipulations were carried out and trading in the scrips was suspended on Bombay Stock Exchange and accordingly, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has purchased 49,925 scrips on 05.12.2012 and 16.04.2012 at the purchase value of Rs..9,700/- on 29.04.2013 and 11.07.2013 and registered an amount of Rs..29,55,210/ and the same was sold for Rs..29,64,910/- and Assessing Officer relied on the report of investigation wing and considered the above scrip as penny stock and accordingly, asked the assessee to file its objections. 4. Accordingly, assessee submitted that assessee apart being a regular tax payer is also investor regularly transacts in shares listed on BSE/NSE since last many years. Documents enclosed in the Paper Book in support of claiming exempt LTCG of Rs.. 29,55,210/- it arose on online sale of alleged scrip li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wing: The findings of the Directorate of Investigation of Mumbai and Kolkata as discussed above have proved that the director of Shree Shalin textiles Ltd and associated brokers, entry operators and the assessee had worked out an arrangement in which the shares were acquired by the assessee, the share prices were rigged and then with the help of entry operators by routing the cash, shares were sold at high price to arrive at tax free capital gains. d. Analysis of transactions: Facts revealed that such trading transactions of purchase and sale of shares are not been effected, for commercial purpose but to create artificial gains, with a view to evade taxes. i Transactions of shares were not governed by market factors prevalent at relevant time in such trade, but same were product of design and mutual connivance on part of assessee and the operators. ii The assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long-term capital gains by way of price difference in share transactions not supported by market factors iii Cumulative events in such transactions of shares revealed that same were devoid of any commercial nature and fell in realm of not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised following grounds in its appeal: - "1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld.C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in upholding rejection of exemption claim of assessee appellant made u/s 10(38) and in confirming the addition made u/s 68 at Rs. 29,64,910/- by the Ld. A.O. treating the entire sale proceeds of listed equity shares as unexplained cash credit which was duly subjected to collection of STT, sold on recognized stock exchange at the prevailing quoted rate after holding the same for more than one year, without properly appreciating the facts of the case, law and supporting documentary evidences in respect of sale and purchase of the impugned LTCG shares furnished on assessment record. In view of the same appellant prays that exemption claim u/s. 10 (38) may kindly be allowed & addition made u/s. 10 (38) may be deleted. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) has filed in not appreciating that the alleged denial of exemption claim u/s 10(38) and alleged addition made u/s 68 at Rs. 29,64,910/- by the Ld. A.O. was wrong on facts and bad in law since the copy of information and documents received from Investigation Directorate, Kolkata have been rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven hereafter in legal arguments. 6. Legal Arguments: i) Vide Compilation of judgements Part-1 filed before hon'ble Tribunal, in the case of Mrs. Pratibha S. Mhatre by an order dated 11/06/2021 passed by hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT "C" Bench Mumbai in ITA No. 695/Mum/2018 (Page No. 13 to Page No. 21) similar addition made on exactly identical facts as in the case of present appellant in respect of very same scrip, Shree Shaleen Textiles Ltd. has been deleted. ii) Vide Compilation of judgements Part-1 filed before hon'ble Tribunal, in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi & Others by an order dated 15/01/2021 passed the hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ITA 125/2020, 130/2020 & 131/2020 (Page No. 3 to Page No. 12) in para12 onwards has held that no addition can be made merely on the basis of weak financial of alleged scrip not justifying the phenomenal rise in its quoted rate and on another basis of report of Investigation Wings and without further corroboration of allegation and bringing any contrary cogent material on record. iii) In a very recent case of Ziauddin A Siddique by an order dated 4th March, 2022 the hon'ble jurisdictional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ena Suresh Jain 6617/Mum/2019 50,000 31,21,781/- 62,435/- Ramesh Kumar M.Jain 315/Mum/2020 60,000 37,36,239/- 76,525/- Ramesh Kumar M. Jain 315/Mum/2020 300 Shares of Jolly Plastic Industries Ltd. 90,043/- Included in 76,525/- This scrip of Jolly Plastic Industries Ltd. was purchased by assessee way back in year 1994 and shown held by assessee in ITR filed by him for earlier assessment years. And because this scrip was categorized by Investigation Wing as Penny Stock, sale proceeds has been added u/s. 68 without bringing any contrary evidence on record which single fact alone goes on to establish that below tax authorities have not applied their mind at all disregarding the holding of the said scrip by assessee for more than 20 years prior to its sale." 10. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by Ld.CIT(A) and specifically brought to our notice Page No. 5 of the Ld.CIT(A) order and he also submitted that the transactions made by the assessee are non-genuine and further, he submitted that the case law relied by the assessee is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 11. Considered the rival submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e category of 'penny stock'. Moreover, the status of this company M/s SRK Industries Ltd in the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs as on 26.2.2019 is still shown under the category of 'Active'. In the said status report of website of ministry of corporate affairs, we find that the fixed assets and current assets of SRK Industries Ltd were subjected to some charge or encumbrance with certain loan creditors and the said charge on assets were also duly cleared by SRK Industries Ltd subsequently. This is evident from the status report mentioned therein as 'closed'. These facts go to prove beyond doubt that SRK Industries Ltd is an operational company even as on 26.2.2019. 7.3. We find that the ld AO sought to identify the alleged purchasers of shares from the assessee and issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all of them. All the notices sent through speed post returned unserved. Based on this, adverse inference was drawn by the ld AO on the assessee. We find that the ld AR had already submitted that in an online platform of trading of shares in the open market through a registered stock broker, it is not possible for the assessee to even know the name and address of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of SRK Industries Ltd but she was told by Shri Shivajirao Jondhale that the value of the shares would get appreciated. This was the sole basis of the assessee making the investment in shares of Transcend Commerce Ltd (Later merged with SRK Industries Ltd) which cannot be doubted at all. In our considered opinion, it cannot be said that all the investment decisions of the assessee would be prudent 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 14 months and later sold it in open market in online platform at prevailing market prices. 7.5. We find that the ld AO had observed that the assessee had traded only in the shares of SRK Industries Ltd. This is factually incorrect statement of the ld AO. Moreover, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : June 28th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : July 25th, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (hereinafter the 'Ld. CIT(A)'), dt. 15/02/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act'), relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee is an individual and derives income from business, professional capital gains and other sources. The facts of the case and the issues involved in this appeal are brought out by the Assessing Officer at paragraphs 3 & 4 of the assessment order, which is extracted for ready reference:- "3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee has filed his/her return showing income from salary of Rs. 84,000/- & income from other sources of Rs. 6,12,677/-. However, in its computation of income the assessee has computed LTCG of Rs. 5,50,159/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the I. T. Act. Therefore, all of a sudden earning of such huge exempted income from LTCG requires for exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 5,50,158/- is treated as bogus and also a sum of Rs. 27,508/- being 5% of Rs. 5,50,158/- is added as undisclosed expenditure within the meaning of section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. [Addition of Rs. 27,508/-]" 4. On appeal, the ld. First Appellate Authority, has classified these transactions as 'suspicious' and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. I 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, I hold as follows:- 6.1. 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used against an assessee unless this evidence is put before him and he is given an opportunity to controvert the evidence. In this case, the AO relies only on a report as the basis for the addition. The evidence based on which the DDIT report is prepared is not brought on record by the AO nor is it put before the assessee. The submission of the assessee that she is just an investor and as she received some tips and she chose to invest based on these market tips 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 brough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uilty or linked to the wrong acts of the persons investigated. In this case, in our view, the Assessing Officer at best could have considered the investigation report as a starting point of investigation. The report only informed the assessing officer that some persons may have misused the script for the purpose of collusive transaction. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to make inquiry from all concerned parties relating to the transaction and then to collect 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 Incometax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling food gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each". The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are equally applicable to the case of the assessee. In our view the assessing officer having failed to bring on record any material to prove that the transaction of the assessee was a collusive transaction could not have rejected the evidences submitted by the assessee. In fact in this case nothing 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1100, this Court held: Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the 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: ".............
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to the assessee's' income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessee's' income from undisclosed sources. In ITA-18-2017 also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very high, the shares were traded on the National Stock Exchange and the 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... KOTHARI HUF [ITA No. 443/Kol/2017] order dated 15.11.2017 held vide Para 9.3 held as under: "........ We find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unfounded/unwarranted allegations leveled by the AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion has no legs to stand and therefore has to fall. We take note that the ld. DR could not controvert the facts which are supported with material 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ND KUMAR JAIN HUF [ITA No. 4682/Mum/2014] order dated 18.09.2017 held as under vide Page 6 Para 8: "......We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been recorded by CIT (A) to the effect that assessee has made investment in shares which was purchased on the floor of stock exchange and not from M/s Basant Periwal and Co. Against 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 ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by bills and payments were made by Account Payee cheque. Raj Impacts also confirmed the transactions. There was no evidence to show that the amount was recycled back to the assessee. Particularly, when it was found that the assessee the trader had also shown sales out of purchases made from Raj Impex which were also accepted by the Revenue, no question of law arises." 20. Applying the proposition of law laid down in the above judgments to the 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." The scrips in question were the subject matter of adjudication before this Tribunal. The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in a number of decisions have, on similar facts and circumstances of the case, decided the issue in favou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the address of the two companies. Based on these crucial facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered the decision in favour of the revenue. None of these factors were present in the facts of the assessee before us. Hence it could be safely concluded that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court supra is factually distinguishable. 7.9. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mukesh Ratilal Marolia in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 7.9.2011 had held as under:- 5. On further appeal, the ITAT by the impugned order allowed the claim of the assessee by recording that the purchase of shares during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were duly recorded in the books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recorded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect that the shares were in-fact transferred to the name of the Assessee. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the Assessee had purchased shares out of the funds du....