TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,87,561/- In the matter it is hereby submitted that the assessee has shown income from long term capital gain of Rs. 27,87,561 which was claimed as exempted income under section 10(38) of the Act. In the case, the equity shares were allotted to the assessee by making payment through account payee cheque in favour of Company "Channel Nine Entertainment Limited The equity shares so acquired have duly been sold online through Bombay Stock Exchange at real time price after paying the Security Transaction Tax (STT). It is also not in dispute that the purchase and sale of the shares were routed through banking channel. Moreover the name of assessee is no where enumerated by any investigation. Hence the addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law and facts and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 2. Rs. 123680/-: The Id CIT (A) had arbitrary assumed that assessee would have incurred 4% expenditure on sales proceeds of shares on account of commission and other expenses to realize such bogus capital gain and added Rs. 1,23,680/- As stated assessee had made real transactions of sales theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verify the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical manner. The assessee has applied for 6000 equity shares of Rs.25 each and made payment through account payee cheque No.0792280 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited in favour of Company "Channel Nine Entertainment Limited" on 23/2/2013 cleared from the bank on 26/2/2013. The assessee was not dealing with any private broker rather he was having Demat account with HDFC Securities Limited. The company has allotted 6000 equity shares duly been made available in the demat account maintained by the assessee with HDFC Securities Limited. 4.3 The equity shares so acquired have duly been sold online through Bombay Stock exchange in the month of June 2014, in phases at average rate of Rs. 490.36 comes out at Rs. 29,37,560/-. The sale consideration thereof has been credited in the bank account on 13/06/2014, 19/06/2014 & 27/06/2014. The copy of bank statement extracts evidencing of receipt of payment is annexed as annexure D. The sale of shares has duly been made online through Bombay Stock Exchange and brokerage, STT & other charges (as collected in listed shares) h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submission of the assessee that he has not paid any commission for taking bogus entry of exempted LTCG, is far from truth. The assessee has failed to explain that why any syndicate which includes many members of different cities working in different capacity will take so much pain to arrange bogus entry of LTCG for the assessee without any benefit derived from him. In the search/ seizure operation conducted by the department, the whole scam of providing bogus LTCG was unearthed These syndicate members which include promoters/ Directors of penny stock company, share brokers etc., have admitted that they have provided bogus LTCG entry in lieu of commission. The gist of the statements of beneficiaries namely Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Sh. Ajit Gupta, Sh. Charchit Gupta and others, who categorically admitted in their statements under oath before Investigation Wing of the department that they paid commission for getting bogus LTCG entries, prove it beyond doubt the entry operators charged commission for providing bogus entry of LTCG V FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) 5.1 In a judgment in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs DCIT (SLA-CC No. 769 of 2017 dated 16.01.2017) whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital Gains with nil taxes or taxes at nominal rates. The addition on account of LTCG taxed u/s 68 at Rs 2787561 is upheld. During the course of investigation, it was also emerged that the syndicate of entry providers charged commission from the beneficiaries in lieu of providing bogus entries. The beneficiaries Sh. Ajit Gupta of Delhi have categorically admitted in his statements recorded u/s 132(4) that he paid commission of 5-6% in cash in lieu of bogus entry of Long Term Capital Gains shown from artificial trading in penny stock bogus company. The assessing officer estimated an amount equivalent to 6% of the bogus Long Term Capital Gains entry, which is restricted to 4% which comes to Rs 123686 rounded to 123680. Commission paid in lieu of entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain was added to the total income for the year under consideration u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained expenditure incurred by way of commission paid to arrange bogus entry of Long Term Capital Gains. The addition is restricted to 123680 5.3 In the result the appeal is dismissed." 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is not ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the order of the Ld AO and even copied the findings of the Ld AO as it is, which seems to be the finding made by the Ld CIT (A) upon plain reading. Reference is SHRI BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR drawn on the relevant para of the order of the CIT(A) (Page no 2 of the order) at page no 30 of the paper book, which is reproduced here-under :- "In addition to above observations, the undersigned has also gone through the reports of Investigation wing of New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata relating to actions conducted by them in cases of bogus LTCG/STCG/STCL/Loss entry providers and also in cases of beneficiaries of this arrangements." Apart from it, the Ld CIT (A)after making cut and paste had simply made new para V titled as "FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEALS)", (at page No 7 of the order) at Page No 35 of the paper book, where-in, it had without discussing anything as higher authority had simply given reference of one of the Judgement as under :- 5.1 In a judgment in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SLA-CC No. 769 of 2017 dated16.01.2017) which is a judgment on bogus purchases, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has decided issue in favou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd is obliged to dismiss the appeal only on the merits of the case by passing a speaking order. In the case of Nisarhusen Amdali Lakhani, ITA 532/Ahd/2018, wherein the Ahmedabad ITAT has set-aside the order of the CIT (A) as the order shows that CIT (A) has failed to address various points of determination and dismissed the appeal of the appellant for his non-appearance. The Ahmedabad tribunal relies on Section 250 (6) of the act and states that the CIT(A) shall pass the order based on points of determination accompanying the reasons thereon. Thus, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss appeal of assessee without deciding the merits of the case. In the instant case, despite of submitting the detailed submissions, the Ld CIT(A) had not considered any one of the submissions and put the AO finding as it is and therefore failed to pass the speaking order. In view of it, the said order deserved to quash. Without prejudice the above and before submitting the detailed submissions, we put the instant case in a summarized way as under :- a. The Assessee is regular assessee under Income Tax Act, 1961 and filed its return of income tax by taking long term capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ock Exchange at real time price after paying the Security Transaction Tax (STT). It is also not in dispute that the purchase and sale of the shares were routed through banking channel. Moreover the name of assessee is no where enumerated by any investigation. As per Income Tax Act, the treatment of long term capital gain of equity shares is as given here-under as per section 10(38) :- "Long-term capital gain arising on transfer of equity share or units of equity oriented mutual fund or units of business trust is not chargeable to tax in the hands of any person, if following conditions are satisfied: ● The transaction i.e. the transaction of sale of equity shares or units of an equity oriented mutual fund or units of business trust should be liable to securities transaction tax. ● Such shares/units should be long-term capital asset. ● Transfer should have taken place on or after October 1, 2004. In the instant case, all the conditions have duly been fulfilled and was eligible to claim the benefit of long term capital gains as envisaged u/s 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as given here-in-after :- a. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax law as annexed at P.No 26-28. Further, the Company is "active" as per the Governing body "Ministry of Corporate Affairs" as on 08/10/024 and filing its ROC returns regularly evidencing from extracts of company details available at MCA Site (http://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/companyLLPMasterData.do), copy of which is annexed herewith P.No 84-85 While going through the statements of Mr Sanjay Vora director of the Company M/s Channel Nine Entertainment Limited, on the sole basis of which, our case is being taken in scrutiny being recorded by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, it is noticed that except few points though general in nature, nothing pertains to the equity shares of the Company Channel Nine Entertainment Limited. The points and our submissions in the matter are as given here-in-after the same had been put before Ld CIT (Appeal) annexed at P.No 18-22 The assessee in the instant case has made the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of a company available online to public at large and through a valid and reputed stock broker "HDFC Securities Limited", whose reputation and goodwill can't be doubted and in ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... basis of suspicion or surmise. He has to bring material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion/connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money. A transaction of purchase and sale of shares, supported by Contract Notes and demat statements and Account Payee Cheques cannot be treated as bogus. c. ITO vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF) 47 CCH (2016) Mumbai Trib Long-term capital gains arising from transfer of penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus merely because SEBI has initiating an inquiry with regard to the Company and the broker, if the shares are purchased from the exchange, payment is by cheque and delivery of shares is taken and given. A. We may further point out that similar addition were made by treating the sale of shares of various other companies as bogus wherein the matter went up to the ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the following cases held that transactions of sale of share is genuine and supported by various evidences and therefore deleted the addition. Few instance of such cases are as under :- 1. DCIT vs. Saurabh Mittal (2018) 53 CCH 530 (Jaipur) (Trib.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooja Agarwal (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has also upheld the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and this Tribunal when the assessee produced all the relevant details and evidences in support of the transaction of purchase and sale of shares. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, when the assessee has produced all the relevant documentary evidences to establish the genuineness of the transaction and there is no contrary evidence to doubt the correctness of the evidences produced by the assessee then treating the transaction of purchase and sale as sham by the AO is not justified. The assessee has also produced the financial statements of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. to show that the company has earned a handsome profit. Further, the alleged SEBI order was also subsequently revoked. Therefore, all these facts established the genuineness of the transaction. Hence, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the IT act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs.1,51,869/- being the deemed commission f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s & made the addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the same. On further appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT by following the decision of Pramod Kumar Jain & others vs. DCIT ITA No. 368/JP/2017 as well as in the case of Meghraj Singh Shekhawat vs. DCIT 443 & 444/JP/2017 allowed the appeal of the assessee. (6) Shri Meghraj Singh Shekhawat vs. DCIT (2017) 443 & 444/JP/2017 (JP) order dated 7-03-2018Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of retail sale of IMFL/Beer. During the assessment proceeding the AO noted that the assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs. 1,32,56,113/- which is claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act on sale of shares of M/s Rutron International Ltd. The AO received information from Investigation Wing, Kolkata that during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 12.04.2015 at the business premises of one Shri Anil Agarwal Group it was found that Shri Anil Agarwal is one of the promoters of M/s Rutron International Ltd. The shares were sold by the assessee from his D-mat account through the broker M/s AnandRathi Share and Stock Brokers Ltd. and therefore, the assessee denied any involvement of availing the bogus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot proven and hence untenable. 2. CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal (2017) 160 DTR 198 (Raj.) (HC) (PB 81-86) Assessee having produced relevant details viz., copy of contract note regarding purchases and sale of shares, account with the share broker and copy of demat account and shown the receipts/payments through account payee cheques and there being no evidence that cash has gone back to the assessee, the share transactions cannot be treated as non-genuine. AO was rightly directed to accept the short-term capital gain as shown by the assessee. 3. Shri Pramod Jain and others Vs. DCIT ITA No.368/JP/2017 order dated 31.01.2018 (Jaipur) (Trib.) Section 10(38)/69 r.w.s 143(3)- Long term capital gain claimed exempt u/s 10(38)- AO denied exemption and assessed it as unexplained income u/s 68/69 by treating the transaction of purchase and sale of shares as not genuine by relying on the information received from DIT, Kolkata that in survey/search carried out in office of broking house certain entry operators including Shri Deepak Patwari, they have stated in the statement recorded u/s 131 that they were merely an operator and buying shares by using the money provided b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Deepak Patwari for transaction of long term capital gain- Held when the transaction of sale and purchase of share and consequent long term capital gain cannot be treated as bogus then the addition made by AO is not sustainable and hence deleted. C. Reliance is also placed on the following cases :- CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.) In this case, assessee had shown LTCG from the sale of shares and same was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38). AO observed that companies, whose shares were allegedly dealt with, were not very well known and it was entirely unlikely that there was a huge rise in prices of their shares in a very short span of time. AO treated huge rise in price as manipulation by stock broker and made additions in income of assessee towards transactions of purchase and sale of shares and undisclosed commission paid in cash. CIT(A) observed that shares were sold by assessee for consideration through named stock broker and appellant furnished all the evidence like broker's note, contract note, extract of cash book, balance- sheet, share certificate etc. to establish the genuineness of transactions. The AO failed to bring any ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of time. Assessee having not furnished any supporting evidence like balance sheet/final statement of M/s Nageshwar Investment Ltd. proving worth of the company, sale consideration of its shares was liable to be treated as income from other sources. It was held that whether or not sale of shares and receipt of consideration thereof on appreciated value is essentially a question of fact. CIT(A) and Tribunal have both given reasons in support of their findings and have found that at the time of transactions, the broker in question was not banned by SEBI and that assessee had produced copies of purchase bills, contract number share certificate, application for transfer of share certificate to demat account along with copies of holding statement in demat account, balance sheet as on 31st March, 2003, sale bill, bank account, demat account and official report and quotations of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. on 23rd July, 2003.Therefore, the present appeal does not raise any question of law, much less any substantial question of law. D. It is a settled law that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court are binding on the lower authorities like the AO, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f shares on account of commission and other expenses to realize such bogus capital gain and added Rs. 123680/- as unexplained expenditure. The Ld CIT (Appeal) had restricted the addition to the extent of Rs 123680 which was primarily assumed by Ld ITO ward 3(1) as 6% and amounting Rs 185530/- As stated assessee had made real transactions of sales therefore no question arises of commission and other charges except STT and other brokerage charges paid on sale of shares which is already reflected in tax return filed for the year. Therefore addition on account of unexplained expenditure is vague and should be deleted. In view of the above, it is very much clear that the impuged order passed by Ld CIT (Appeal) was without looking the facts and documents and as such, deserved to be void. (CA Manish Jain) 2.2.1 Further, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the submission of certified copies dated 17-12-2024 whose details are as under :- Dated: 17-12-2024 To, The Hon'ble Member Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur-01 Subject :- Submission of Certified Copies Assessee : Sh. Birendra Singh Nirbhay (PAN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Bhandari vs ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur ITA No. 95/JP/2023 80-89 6. Amit Rastogi and Ors vs ITO, Ward 1(1), ITA Nos. 2128,2129, 2131 and 2132/Del/2018 90-94 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted following submissions in this case. "BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, 'SMC' BENCH, JAIPUR IN THE MATTER OF BirendraSingh Nirbhay - PAN-ABXPN5976H A.Y. 2015-16 (ITA NO.704/JPR/24) The submission is having two parts. Part 'A' is brief of assessment order and part 'B' is submission on the case. PART A Background of the case and Findings by the Ld.AO 1. Return Filing and Assessment: i. The assessee e-filed its return on 09-10-2015, declaring total income of Rs.3,89,720/-. ii. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 02.11.2017, with the income finally assessed at Rs.33,62,810/-. 2. Scrutiny and Reopening Proceedings: i. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. ii. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 28-07-2016 and duly served. 3. Business Background and Investment in Shares: i. The assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment. 7. Legal and Judicial Reasoning: i. The assessment order emphasizes that in assessing whether a transaction is genuine or sham, the surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and the preponderance of probabilities are relevant. ii. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in Hersh Win Chadha vs. DCIT and subsequent decisions (e.g., SumatiDayal vs. CIT, UshaChandresh Shah vs. ITO, Arvind M Kariya vs. ACIT) have established that the revenue is entitled to consider circumstantial evidence along with documentary proof. iii. The Supreme Court, in McDowell vs. CTO, stated that "colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning," reinforcing that the assessee's scheme is a mere subterfuge to convert unaccounted cash into tax- exempt income. iv. The decision in CIT vs. P. Mohankala further supports that unexplained credits in the books must be considered income when no satisfactory explanation is provided by the assessee. Part -B Submission in Support of the Revenue's Position on the Lack of Investment Worth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.2 Insufficient Supporting Evidence: i. Despite multiple opportunities, no robust documentation has been produced to demonstrate that the investment in the company will generate future income in line with its face value. 3. Genuineness of Investment and Real Investment 3.1 Definition of Investment: i. Investment refers to the allocation of funds into an asset or venture with the expectation of generating future returns, measured by the asset's face (nominal or book) value as recorded in the financial statements. 3.2 Definition of Real Investment: i. Real Investment goes beyond the face value by reflecting the asset's productive capacity and its ability to yield projected returns such as cash flows, dividends, or capital appreciation. ii. It is a measure of the asset's intrinsic economic value and its contribution to long- term wealth creation. 3.3 Application to the Present Matter: i. The assessee contends that the investment in the company will yield attractive returns; however, the company's financial records demonstrate a negligible asset base and poor operational performance.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2009 2010 Equity Share 4.67 4.67 4.67 1 4.67 Financial Ratio of the Scrip Key Financial Raito Mar 14 Mar 13 Mar 12 Mar 11 Mar 10 Face Value 1 1 1 1 10 Asset Turnover Ratio -- 809.77 4,097.05 -- -- Earnings per share 0.03 0.08 1.39 -0.90 -0.35 Book Value 14.73 14.69 104.96 16.38 17.28 5. To assess whether the investment in M/s Channel nine Entertainment Ltd. is worthwhile, let's break down and analyse the financial data from the Profit & Loss account and the Balance Sheet of the company, along with the provided financial ratios. Key Points to Analyse: Profit & Loss Account: 1. Profitability: ● The company shows minimal profit over the years, with profits ranging from Rs.0.12crore (March 2013) to Rs.0.05 crore (March 2014). ● There is a consistent fluctuation in profits, with the company reporting a loss in some years (e.g., March 2011, -Rs.0.04crore, March 2010, - Rs.0.02crore). ● The EPS (Earnings Per Share) is negat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; Negative or near-zero in recent a year, which suggests poor operational performance. ● Net Operating Profit per Share: ● Decreasing in compare to previous years and consistence very low performance in most years, indicating poor operational efficiency. ● Asset Turnover Ratio: ● Low asset turnover ratios across the years, suggesting that the company is not efficiently utilizing its assets to generate revenue. This indicates a potential underperformance in operations. ● Earnings Per Share (EPS): ● The EPS shows fluctuation with negative values in some years, highlighting instability in profits and earnings. Conclusion: The financial data suggests that Chennel Nine entertainment lt.was not a promising investment at that time. The company is reporting low profits, negative reserves, poor asset utilization, and low liquidity, which are indicators of financial instability. Additionally, the lack of dividend payments and minimal reinvestment in assets signals that the company may be struggling to generate consistent growth. While the investment might be viable for specul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025 Dated 13/03/25 Implications for the Present Case: ● The facts are same as of present case, and assessee has no past history in investing in shares. Summary of the Order of Prakash Chand Jain: ● Background: The assessee appealed against the NFAC, Delhi order dated 07.01.2025, which had disallowed the long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption claimed under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The disputed transaction involved shares acquired through an amalgamation, later sold at a significant profit, with the assessee claiming an exempt LTCG. ● Grounds of Appeal: 1. Disallowance of LTCG Exemption: The assessee argued that the LTCG exemption should be allowed, as all share transactions were genuine and supported by documentary evidence (contract notes, Demat statements, bank transactions, and STT compliance), contrary to the AO and CIT (A)'s presumption of non-genuineness. 2. Violation of Natural Justice: The assessee contended that his right to cross-examine witnesses was denied, as the additions were based on unverified third-party statements and an investigation report, without affordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reate genuine economic value-has not been met by the assessee's claims. iv. The Swati Bajaj decision confirms that the burden is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of an investment, a burden that remains unmet. Accordingly, the Revenue prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal dismiss the assessee's claims for an inflated valuation and any associated tax benefits, and uphold the assessment based on the actual, unimproved financial position of the company. Submitted Most Respectfully, Enclosures: 1. Financial Data and AO's Report on the Company's Poor Financial Position 1. Relevant Extracts from the Swati Bajaj Judgment ([2022] 446 ITR 56 (Cal.)) 2. Chandra Prakash Jain ITAT JAIPUR/ITA No. 66(AY-2012-13)/2025 Dated 13/03/25" The ld.DR also submitted the case laws as under:- S.N Particulars Page No. 1. In the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata, ITA No. 1077/KOL/2024 Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.138, Canning Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata vs ITO,Ward 6(3), Kolkata 1-28 2. [2022] 139 Taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta) High Court of Calcutta, Principal Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Bogus LTCG/STCG/STCL/Loss entry providers and in case of beneficiaries of this arrangement. It is noted from the assessment order where the AO made deep analysis in the case of the assessee and made addition of Rs.27,87,561/- u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee by observing at para 10 of his order as under :- "10. In view of detailed analysis, in foregoing para, of the evidences and the judicial pronouncement, it has been established beyond doubt and is therefore held that unaccounted income of Rs.27,87,561/- routed back to the assessee, during the year under consideration, camouflaged as long term capital gains of Rs.27,87,561/- has been provide to be a bogus entry and not satisfactory explained. This way, the assessee was in receipt of cash credit of Rs.27,87,561/- for which it failed offer any satisfactory explanation especially in light of credible evidence gathered by the department. The sum of Rs.27,87,561/- is therefore, added u/s 68 to the total income of the assesee for the year under consideration treating it as unexplained cash credit. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under :- 5.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oker and fake contract note for this purchase. Thus, the allegation of the revenue is general without considering the facts of the case on hand. Even the shares that the assessee received were remain available for more than 12 months in the demant account itself and that is sufficient proof to avail the benefit as available as per provision of section 10(38) of the Act. We are afraid if such a way, we take a view that the gain arrived by a valid process be considered as bogus gain and unexplained then the mess will be created no corporate entity will get the capital and the purpose of capital market will vanish. The contention of the revenue that the assessee never met to the broker is also not correct because the assessee has sold the shares through a mediator HDFC Securities Limited the assessee may not met that broker but definitely after completing the KYC process opened the demat and trading account with that broker and there is no finding of the investigation team that the HDFC Securities Limited were part of the price ragging process. Thus, the based on the presumption and assumption the additions were made are not prevailing the in facts of the case discussed herein above a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not considered as invalid. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Thus the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 As regards the Ground No. 2 of the assessee wherein the AO made addition of Rs. 1,85,530/- u/s 69C of the Act, in the hands of the assessee by observing as under :- "Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, it is held that the assessee has paid commission @ 6% of sale value of shares of M/s. Channel Nine Entertainment Limited and paid a sum of Rs.1,85,530/-,equal to 6% of the amount of sale proceeds of bogus share transaction and the assessee has not offered any explanation about the source of the same. This sum of Rs. 1,85,530/- is treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration." In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition from Rs.1,85,530/- to 1,23,680/- i.e. from 6% to 4% by observing as under :- " ....... The beneficiaries Sh. Ajit Gupta of Delhi have categorically admitted in his statements recorded u/s 132(4) that h....