TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital gains accruing to the appellant as nongenuine only based on general finding of Directorate of Investigation and various statements recorded by it without any cogent material on record and no nexus / connection with the appellant being established to prove the impugned transaction as bogus. 3) The learned CIT (A) failed to take cognizance of documentary evidence provided by the appellant such as bank statements, brokers' contract notes and ledger accounts, demat accounts, etc. to substantiate the transactions of purchase and sale of shares. The addition made u/s 68 is merely on presumptions, suspicion, surmises, and conjectures disregarding the direct evidence placed on record. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Loss of Rs. 1,31,62,634/ made by Assessing Officer and considering the same as NIL without providing any substantive evidence or explanation. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in ignoring all the documents/explanation/ submissions provided by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us operandi of such bogus transactions was accepted by the persons in statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act of respective key persons in the light of various evidences/papers/documents etc. found & seized from their premises. The AO has discussed the whole modus operandi in the body of the assessment order. 3.2 The AO has further mentioned that the assessee had traded in several scrips and ASHIKACR is one of them. In this context, a show cause notice was issued asking the assessee to explain why sale proceeds of Rs. 3,35,70,685/- derived on sale of shares of ASHIKACR should not be added back as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act by treating the same as a sham transaction. The reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the AO on the ground that the key person of said group had admitted entire nature of bogus transaction in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act and it was established that the assessee had availed bogus entries through concerns belonging to group engaged in accommodation entry business. Therefore, the AO added a sum of Rs. 3,35,70,685/- to the total income of the assessee treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hase transactions. The ld. AR drawn attention to detailed written submissions dated 03.02.2021 as made before the ld.CIT(A) which has also been reproduced in the body of the appellate order from pages-4 to 10 of the order. He neither appreciated the documentary evidences nor the decisions relied upon by the assessee wherein on identical facts, similar additions have been deleted. In the course of hearing before us, the ld.AR has placed on record order passed by SEBI dated 19.07.2011 whereby it has exonerated Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. It is also submitted that the said scrip is being still traded as per MCA site giving company's information dated 04.06.2025. 6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, rival submissions etc. The only dispute in the present appeal is against the addition made under section 68 of the Act on account of proceeds from the sale of shares by treating the scrip of Ashika as penny stock. The assessee filed all relevant evidences i.e. contract notes, bank statements, Demat account etc., besides claiming the transaction was made on the platform of stock exchange and through banking channels. The ld.AO did not point out any infirmity in the evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lower rate of tax on short-term capital gains earned by the assessee. The AO also referred to the value of the shares at a different point in time including the period during which the assessee was holding the shares. However, from the perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that neither in the findings of the Investigation Wing, referred by the AO from pages 4-6 of the assessment order, nor in the statements of beneficiaries and entry providers recorded during the aforesaid investigation, as mentioned from pages 12-22 and thereafter from 24-31 of the assessment order, there is any mention of the name of the assessee. Further, the aforesaid findings also do not establish any nexus of these tainted investors, exit providers, or entry operators with the assessee in any manner. 5. In the assessment order in para-7.2, the AO also referred to the order passed by the SEBI penalising and restraining the stockbroker, through whom the assessee purchased shares of M/s Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd, as it was involved in rigging the share price of certain shares. However, we find that there is no allegation that such a broker was involved in rigging the price of the shares in w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observation of the investigating authority of Kolkata. But no separate verification was conducted. The assessee has discharged her onus by submitting documents before the revenue authorities. There is no information of entry/exit provider in appeal and assessment stage. The share was duly opened by the SEBI but later on the same was revoked. The co-ordinate bench in the case of assessee's husband Shri Abhishek Tejraj Doshi (supra)&Shri Abhishek Doshi (supra) has taken a view in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. For our observations and to arrive at the findings, we respectfully relied on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay being a jurisdictional High Court: Pr. CIT v. Ziauddin A Siddique [Income-tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2017, dated 4-3-2022] held as under: - "1. The following question of law is proposed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,03,33,925/- made by AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the shares were bought/acquired from off market sources and thereafter the same was DMATed and registered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere are 1,30,000 shares of Bolton Properties Ltd. purchased by the Assessee during the month of January 2003 and he continued to hold them till 31 March 2003. the present case related to 20,000 shares of Mantra Online 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 two brokers were available and which gave details of the transactions. The contract note is a system gene and prescribed by the Stock Exchange. From this material, in para 11 the Tribunal concluded that this was mere accommodation of cash and enabling it to be converted into accounted or regular payment-discrepancy pointed out by the Calcutta Stock Exchange regarding client Code has been referred to. Bi Tribunal concluded that itself, is not enough to prove that the transactions in the impugned shares bogus/sham. The details received from Stock Exchange have been relied up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... At hand. Similarly, the case of Sumati Dayal (supra) too turns on its own specific facts. The above- stated cases, thus, are of no assistance to the case sought to be canvassed by the Revenue. 13. The learned ITAT, being the last fact-finding authority, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, has rightly come (o the conclusion that the lower tax authorities are not able to sustain the addition without any cogent material on record. We thus find no perversity in the Impugned Order." Further, we respectfully relied on the orders of Hon'ble High Courts on similar facts in favour of the assessee. .........................X................ The ld. DR respectfully relied on the order of Swati Bajaj (Supra) where the action of the ld. AO is confirmed. Accordingly, the same would prevail on the issue before this Bench. In the present case, the decision of the Hon'ble Non- Jurisdictional High Court carries only a influence. The law is very well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd reported in 55 ELT 43 (1991) that the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one year, the appellant was claimed exemption of LTCG under section 10(38) of the Act. 10. The learned AO had asserted in the assessment order that the assessee along with her family members had sold the shares of Ashika Credit and Capital Limited to M/s Withal Commercial Private Limited. Firstly, the shares of Ashika Credit and Capital Limited are sold through the stock exchange, wherein the identity of buyers and sellers is unknown to each other. Secondly, the said assertion is made without any corroboration. The ld. AO did not appreciate that Ashika Stock Broking Limited was banned from buying/selling or dealing in securities in their own/proprietary account. Later, the ban on taking/dealing with fresh/new clients was also lifted. The ld. AO did not appreciate that the appellant was the broker's existing client. The SEBI order EAD- 7/BJD/NJMR/2018-19/2289- 2295, order dated-28/02/2019, APB pages-74 to 97 referred to the impugned appeal order by the ld. CIT (A) does not hold Confidence Finance and Trading Limited and its directors guilty of manipulative scheme to manipulate the price of the scrip of the said company. Only the brokers, Mr. Daulat Laxmi Chandr....