TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 of 2014. Mr. Deepak R. Shah, Advocate for the Appellants in Appeal Nos. 82 to 85, 89 and 90 of 2014. Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat, Mr. Harekrishna Ashar, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. ORDER PER : JOG SINGH, MEMBER PER : JOG SINGH, MEMBER (ORAL) 1. In this bunch of ten appeals, the appellants have challenged order dated January 20, 2014 by which a consolidated monetary penalty of Rs. 5 crore has been imposed on the appellants by the learned adjudicating officer under Section 15HA of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short 'SEBI Act'). The appellants are alleged to have violated Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act read with R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f their trading activity in the four scrips in question. Certain charts in the tabular form have been incorporated in the show cause notice itself by the respondent to bring home the charge against the appellants and relied upon in the impugned order. The appellants seem to have presented almost identical, and rather stereotyped, replies before the learned adjudicating officer denying the charges. The appellants have not categorically admitted or denied the existence of alleged Sanghvi Group, whose members are alleged to have acted in connivance with each other in the matter. While denying the charges in question, the appellants did submit before the learned adjudicating officer in the said replies that the price movements in the four scrip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s alleged in the show cause notice. The appellants cannot be held guilty of the charges merely on the basis of a common telephone number or a common e.mail ID. It is a common feature of joint family staying together to have a common landline or e.mail ID. A common mobile number was undoubtedly provided by some of the appellants to respective brokers and the same belongs to the accountant, who manages records of most of the appellants. An additional affidavit dated April 15, 2014 was filed by the appellants on December 11, 2014 categorically denying the existence of any Sanghvi Group. 6. It is also argued on behalf of the appellants that there was no sale/purchase transaction within the alleged Sanghvi Group. Therefore, synchronization of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants beforehand. It is, thus, contended by Shri Joshi, learned senior counsel, that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, Shri Rustomjee, learned senior counsel for the respondent, has contended that various details of the transactions in question have been given in the show cause notice and, therefore, there was no need to provide separate copy of the inspection report to the appellants or its extracts. It is also pointed out that on behalf of the respondent that in the reply to the show cause notice, the appellants did mention about the existence of the Group, i.e., the alleged Sanghvi Group. Therefore, in view of this admission by the appellants, the learned adjudicating officer was not r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous charge and hence cogent and convincing evidence is required to be brought on record before the said charge could be proved against the appellants. 11. The learned adjudicating officer has also not examined the fact that all the transactions in question which were undertaken by the appellants at the prevailing market price are screen based and delivery was duly effected after making/receiving payments by the appellants. Some of the appellants did make profit whereas others suffered losses. Further, in the show cause notice, admittedly, there is a charge of making profit by the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1.10 crore whereas in the impugned order the same is computed over Rs. 2.25 crore. The reason of such a finding is hardly to be no....