TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer which is solely based on the generic information received from the investigation wing not specific to appellant and without making independent enquiries either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to establish complicity of the appellant or her broker in particular, with the persons named in the said information. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has in confirming the Assessing Officer's action in making addition of Rs 53,58,136/u/s 68 on account of sale proceeds on sale of shares of M/s Tilak Ventures Limited, without there being any specific finding against the bonafide investment and sale thereof after holding same for a period of more than 12 months through online platform of recognized stock exchange through the SEBI registered stock broker subject to payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT). 4. On the facts and the circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgments cited by the respective parties and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 4. From the record, we noticed that the assessee is an individual and derived income from capital gains and income from other sources, the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 on 26.08.2012 disclosing total income of Rs. 2,02,752/- and on the basis of information available with the Ld.AO. According to the assessee is one of the beneficiary of having taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus capital gain / loss having dealt in the shares of M/s Tilak Ventures Ltd, the shares of which had been classified as penny stock. Therefore, after carrying out verification, the Ld.AO reopened the assessment by invoking provisions of Sec. 147 and 148 of the Act. Thereby making additions of Rs. 53,58,136/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Although, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) but the same was dismissed thereby upholding the order of Ld.AO. 5. Now, before us, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the same argum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i in the case of Farzad Sheriar Jehani vs Income Tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 9 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2024] 110 ITR(T) 298 10. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan [2024] 161 taxmann.com 674 11. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Gopal Nihchaldas Pariani vs Income Tax Officer [2023] 152 taxmann.com 252 12. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mahendra Parekh vs ACIT, in ITA No. 1566/Mum/2023. 13. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Uttam Jain HUF Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO/ National eassessment Centre in ITA No. 2427/Mum/2023. 14. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3429/M/2019 15 Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO reported in 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai) 16. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case of Mrs Neeta Bothra vs. Income Tax Officer [2022] 137 taxmann.com 463 (Chennai - Trib.)/[2021] 92 ITR(T) 450 17. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Reena Jain v. Income-tax 1 O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thakkar and Ors Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 1605 to 1611/Mum/2021 dated 03.02.2023 7. Whereas on the contrary, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 8. After having heard counsels from both the parties at length, we noticed that the Ld. AR has placed voluminous paper book on record which contains computation of total income for the financial year end on 31.03.2012 relevant to the A.Y 2012-13, acknowledgement of return of income in ITR-V along with income tax return in form ITR-2 filed on 26.08.2012, vide acknowledgment in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, objections dated 04.11.2019 e-filed on 05.11.2019 vide e-filing acknowledgment against the reopening of assessment. We have perused that the assessee has placed on record the determination of long term capital gain / loss on sale of shares by placing on record contract notes for sale of shares of M/s Tilak Finance Ltd, ledger account of appellant in the books of broker M/s Nirmal Bang Securitas Pvt Ltd, ledger account of M/s Nirmal Bang Securitas Pvt Ltd in the books of appellant, bank statement showing payment for acquisition of shares of M/s Tilak Finance Ltd, letter of allotment of shares....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and earned Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG)of Rs.2,39,92,894/- and claimed exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act. The assessee has substantiated the genuineness of transactions of trading in shares with the supporting evidences and information in the assessment proceedings vide letters dated 27-01-2020,24.01.2022 and 5-03-2022 placed in the paper book with the ledger account copy of the assessee in the books of SEBI Registered broker for F.Y.2014-15 placed at Page 393&394 of the paper book, copy of Demat statement placed at page 355 to 365 of the paper book, copy of bank statement reflecting purchase/allotment of shares placed at Page392 6. The Ld.AR contentions are that the assessee has filed the documentary evidence to justify the genuineness of the purchases, sales and the long term capital gains as the assessee has sold the shares on the recognized stock exchange where the STT has been paid in respect of listed shares and the shares are held for more 24 months. The Ld.AR demonstrated the sale cum contract notes, computation of long term capital gains, details of investments by the assessee in the F.Y.2014-15, ledger account of stock broker at page 117 to 354 of the paper book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Mumbai for AY 2015-16 on 26.02.2024 in ITA No. 3417/Mum/2023 " 7. The Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Indravadan Jain HUF. ITA No.454 of 2018 dated 12.07.2023 [2023] 156 taxman.com 605 (Bom) has considered the facts of sale of shares and dismissed the revenue appeal as under: 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Act Respondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year 2003 and sold the same in the year 2005 for Rs.155.04/- per share. It was A.O.'s case that investigation has revealed that the scrip was a penny stock and the capital gain declared was held to be accommodation entries. A broker Basant Periwal & Co. (the said broker) through whom these transactions have been effected had appeared and it was evident that the broker had indulged in price manipulation through synchronized and cross deal in scrip of RFL. SEBI had also passed an order regarding irregularities and synchronized trades carried out in the scrip of RFL by the said broker. In view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rised. 8. Similarly the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Shyam R. Pawar, 54 taxmann.com 108 has observed as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share dealings) - Assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 Assessee declared capital gain on sale of shares of two companies. Assessing Officer, observing that transaction was done through brokers at Calcutta and performance of concerned companies was not such as would justify increase in share prices. held said transaction as bogus and having been done to convert unaccounted money of assessee to accounted income and, therefore, made addition under section 68 - On appeal, Tribunal deleted addition observing that DMAT account and contract note showed credit/details of share transactions; and that revenue had stopped inquiry at particular point and did not carry forward it to discharge basic onus Whether on facts, transactions in shares were rightly held to be genuine and addition made by Assessing Officer was rightly deleted Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee] It was revealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that the Calcutta Stock Exchange- wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....either. [Para 6] 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar, 130 taxmann.com 177 (SC) has observed as under: Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Income arising from transfer of long-term securities (Shares) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee-individual engaged in business of trading in shares claimed long term capital gains arising out of sale of shares as exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing officer denied claim and made certain additions into assessee's income on grounds that said gains were earned through bogus penny stock transactions and companies to whom sold shares belonged were bogus in nature Tribunal observing that assessee by submitting records of purchase bills, sale bills, demat statement, etc., had discharged his onus of establishing said transactions to be fair and transparent, same not being earned from bogus companies was eligible for exemption under section 10(38) High court by impugned order held that no substantial question of law. arose from Tribunal's order - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed -Held, yes (Para 2) (In favour of assessee) 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale of shares was received through Banking channels. All these documentary evidences in favour of the assessee were rejected by Assessing Offiver merely on the basis of some casual replies given by assessee to the Assessing Officer. However, the fact remains that all the documentary evidences are in favour of assessee and learned CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same." 11. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, 328 ITR 656 (Bom) has observed as under: Income-Cash credit-Genuineness of share transactions-Assessee offered long- term capital gains arising from sale of shares-On the basis of material seized during the search in the case of various assessee who belong to H group, AO did not accept the capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified Fact that the assessee in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been produced to establi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brought on record to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding of fact that the cash credits in the bank accounts of some of the buyers of shares cannot be linked to the assessee. Moreover, in the light of the documentary evidence adduced to show that the shares purchased and sold by the assessee were in conformity with the market price, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the cash credits in the buyers' bank accounts cannot be attributed to the assessee. No fault can be found with the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of facts. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal.-Asstt. CIT vs. Kamal Kumar S. Agrawal (Indl.) & Ors. (2010) 41 DTR (Nag) (Trib) 105: (2010) 133 TT) (Nag) 818 affirmed; Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124: (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC) distinguished. (Paras 11 to 14 & 16) Conclusion: Assessee having established the genuineness of purchase and sale of shares by producing documentary evidence and declaring the purchase and sale price of sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 6. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Renu Aggarwal (2023) 456 ITR 249 (SC) dated 3-07- 2023 has observed as under "CASH CREDITS-TRANSACTIONS IN PENNY STOCKS-FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO ADVERSE COMMENT FROM STOCK EXCHANGE OR COMPANY WHOSE SHARES INVOLVEDASSESSING OFFICER QUOTING FACTS PERTAIN- ING TO COMPLETELY UNRELATED PERSONS NAME OF ASSESSEE NEITHER QUOTED BY ANY SUCH PERSONS NOR MATERIAL RELATING TO ASSESSEE FOUND IN INVESTIGATION-TRIBUNAL AFFIRMING AND HIGH COURT DIS- MISSING DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL-SUPREME COURT-SPECIAL LEAVE PETI- TION DISMISSED-INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ss. 68, 260A. Where the High Court dismissed the Department's appeal saying that no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing relief to the assessee, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he stock exchange or by the company whose shares were involved in these transactions and he held that the Assessing Officer only quoted the facts pertaining to various completely unrelated persons whose statements were recorded and on the basis of unfounded presumptions He further held that the name of the appellants were neither quoted by any of such persons nor any material relating to the assessee was found at any place where investigation was done by the Investigation Wing. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying on various orders of the Lucknow Benches and other Benches has allowed relief to the asses- see by placing reliance on the evidence filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. I do not find any adversity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) specifically keeping in view the fact that the Lucknow Benches in a number of cases after relying on the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krishna Devi had allowed relief to various assessee." The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the first appellate authority and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law is involved in the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransaction Tax ("STT") has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed reliance on a judgement of the Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) but that does not help the revenue in as much as the facts in that case were entirely different. 5. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 6. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5.14. We find that the ld. DR had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial of exemption for long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act and estimated commission @ 6% against the same. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed." 15. We find the facts and circumstances of the present case is similar and identical and pertains to the A.Y 2015-16 dealt by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.4035/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) dated 24.04.2024 and granted relief observing at Page 3 Para 3 to 12 of the order as under: 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee's case was reopened under section 148 of the Act on the ground for non-disclosure of the transaction related to shares of M/s ACI Infocom Ltd (in brevity ACI) and M/s Tilak Ventures Ltd (in short, Tilak), which are listed in BSE and Ld.AO has treated this transaction as penny stock transaction. Relying on the information received from DDIT(Inv), U-8(2), Mumbai the transaction of both these shares of thecompaniesare treated as penny stock transaction. The assessee during the impugned assessment year had declared these scrips and transactions in the return of income and generated loss amount to Rs.4,89,840/- related to ACI andamount to Rs.1,008/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d no significant activity of the company and the price of its shares. The price of the scrip rose from Rs. 2.63 in 24.08.2011 and peaked to Rs. 21.90 in 21.02.2013 and subsequently dropped to Rs. 2.93 in 20.08.2013. The scrip price of M/s Tilak Ventures Ltd. rose from Rs. 2.21 on 27.10.2010 to Rs. 50.45 on 23.01.2012 and Rs. 9.71 on 26.07.2012 to Rs. 185.00 on 01.03.2013 and then fell back to Rs. 9.01 on 04.09.2015.Thus the claim of investment based on the market movement of such volatile scrip is totally irrational and beyond justification of any prudent business man. The claim thus not best on the market movement but based on the information from any other person like entry operators. Regarding the decision of investment into the share were taken by the directors but minutes book of the company did not reflect any such decision of the directors. In this regard, investigation report had stated that the assessee company was managed and controlled by well-known entry operator Vipul Vidur Bhatt." 6. The ld. AR further has invited our attention to the Recorded Reason of the ld.AO. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below: - "3. The assesses is beneficiary of sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. Further amount of Rs.9,90,314/- has been shown as amount of loss sustained by the petitioner which was debited in his account and not credited as mentioned in the notice. The said amount was also included in the return filed by the petitioner. 12] The effect of re-opening the assessment based on wrong facts or conclusions has been considered in Tata Sons Limited (supra). It has been held that if the reasons for re-opening the assessment are based on incorrect facts or conclusions, the notice issued for re-opening cannot be sustained. A similar view has been taken in Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as in Ankita A. Choksey (supra). In paragraph 6 thereof, it has been observed that the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped must be based on correct facts and if the facts as recorded in the reasons are not correct and the assessee points out the same in his objections then the order on objections must deal with the same and prima facie establish that the facts stated in its reasons as recorded are correct. If the Assessing Officer has proceeded on fundamentally wrong facts to form reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Broking Private Limited and payment was made by cheque on 27.08.2011. All these shares were sold on 25.10.2012 and 08.11.2012 for Rs. 14,62,111/- with profit of Rs. 12,03,372/- on these shares and the total long-term gain derived by the assessee had been claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.1 The Ld. AR contended that all these trading details reflected in broker transaction statement have been submitted during the assessment proceedings. It is submitted that the aforesaid company M/s ACI Infocom Ltd is presently traded in BSE and meeting the SEBI Compliance. The appellant drew our attention to the submission furnished before the authorities below regarding the details of long term capital gain (APB, Pg.56) and the details of payment made through cheque at the time of purchase (APB, Pg.57). The appellant further referred to the copy of broker Nine Star Commodities (APB, Pgs.59 and 61) and broker note for purchase and sale of shares (APB, Pgs. 73 to 79)." 9. The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 10. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement by the Ld.CIT(A) are deleted. 12. In the result, appeal in ITA No.4035/Mum/2023 is allowed." 16. Similarly the facts and circumstances of the present case is identical and pertains to the A.Y 2015-16 in respect of sale of shares of M/s. Tilak Ventures Ltd dealt by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case M/s Crosseas Capital Services P. Ltd Vs. ACIT Mumbai in ITA No. 3417(A.Y.2015-16) to 3420/Mum/2023 dated 26.02.2024 and granted relief observing at Page 9 Para 14 to 22 of the order as under: "14. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.6, 16,65,270/- was filed on 30.09.2015. The case was subjected to scrutiny assessment and assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 18.12.2017 determining the assessed income at Rs.6,76,11,000/-. Subsequently the case was reopened on the basis of information received from central circle-2(2), Kolkata wherein it was informed that M/s. Tilak Venture Ltd. was a penny stock listed on BSE and this company had been used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income of members of beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain or STCL in their books of accounts. Thereafter the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the form of LTCG & STCL. 21. This is an undisputed fact that the assessee has claimed trading loss in respect of trade transaction carried out in the scrip M/s. Tilak Venture Ltd. and the assessee has not claimed any LTCG or STCL as alleged by the AO. Further we have noticed that during the original assessment the assessee has submitted the daily trade transactions in annexure 10 to the AO vide letter dated 06.11.2017 and further scripwise profit earned or loss incurred were provided in a CD on 10.11.2017 which was also acknowledged by the AO vide a letter dated 20.11.2017. Looking to the above facts and materials placed on record we find that the lower authorities could not substantiate that the assessee has obtained LTCG & STCL by trading in the scrip M/s. Tilak Venture Ltd. since the assessee has reported the same as trading loss under the head business income. 22. In view of the above facts and circumstances we do not find any justification in the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ground No.2 of appeal of the assessee is allowed." 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kuntala Mohapatra, [2024] 160 taxma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out a case that there is unaccounted money transactions took place in the hands of the assessee and the AO has relied on the investigation report and treated the long term capital gains on sale of shares as not genuine. Further the A.O. has not made any enquiry or independent investigation. The fact remains that the assessee is a regular investor in shares and has submitted the requisite details in respect of purchase and sale of shares and were not disproved. The transaction of sale of shares is through SEBI registered broker of BSE & NSE supported with the sale bills cum contract notes subjected to Securities Transaction Tax(STT) and the demat account statement reflecting debits on the sale of shares and the sale proceeds are received through banking channel. The Ld. AR has furnished the data from the MCA Website on the status of the company, which is active compliant and the investee company i.e M/sTilak Ventures Ltd has filed the last Balance sheet dated 31-03-2023 and the Annual General Body meeting was held on 30-09-2023. The A.O has not established that the assessee was involved in the price rigging of the shares and also any enquiry was conducted by the SEBI and BSE. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmittedly the assessee though purchased the shares as involved through off market from share broker M/s. VRP Financial Services Ltd., Navi Mumbai, however, subsequently got the same dematerialized and sold the same after the gap of 2.5 years on online platform/stock exchange and there is no specific allegation against the assessee neither any role is attributed to the assessee and/or the share broker namely M/s. VRP Financial Services Ltd., Navi Mumbai qua rigging of scrip involved and also there is no material available on record and it is also not the case of the Revenue Department that M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. (scrip) has already been suspended by the SEBI and/or not in existence as on today. It is an admitted fact that the authorities below while making and affirming the addition in hand mainly relied upon the investigation carried out by the Investigation Directorate at Kolkata and the financials of the M/s, NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. It is also not in denial that the assessee has duly filed the relevant documents such as purchase note/bills, copy of bank statements, highlighting the payment made towards acquisition, computation of LTCG and contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e price of the said scrip in RFL. The CIT[A] also did not find anything wrong in respondent doing only one transaction with the said broker in the scrip of RFL. The CIT[A] came to the conclusion that respondent brought 3000 shares of RFL, on the floor of Kolkata Stock Exchange through registered share broker. In pursuance of purchase of shares the said broker had raised invoice and purchase price was paid by cheque and respondent's bank account has been debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and bills were made available during the course of appellate proceedings. On the sale of shares respondent effected delivery of shares by way of Demat instructions slip and also received payment from Kolkata Stock Exchange. The cheque received was deposited in respondent's bank account. In view thereof, the CIT[A] found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances we do not find any justification in the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ground No.2 of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. The assessee further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s Aadesh Commodities Pvt Ltd Vs. NFAC, in ITA No. 4035/Mum/2023 & Ors for the relevant portion of the said order reproduced herein below: 10. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee had made the transactions and generated loss through the transaction of scripts ACI and Tilak. The assessee's holding was more than 2 years. There is no such direct communication reflected in the order of the Ld.AO that the entire transaction was made a sham transaction in the observation of recorded reasons, the Ld. AO mentioned that the transactions are undisclosed whereas during the assessment and appellate stages before the authorities were unable to substantiate that the entire transaction was not disclosed in the return. In recorded reason the Id. AO specifically mentioned that the transacted amount is not reflected in capital gain column of return filed U/s 139 of the Act. Whereas, theassessee declared the transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are. The shares so allotted were credited in the demat account. Out of 50000 shares acquired by the assessee of Tilak Finance Limited, the assessee sold 5000 shares during August to September, 2011 and the balance shares of 45000 were split into 10 shares of Rs. 1/- each by the said company. Accordingly, after splitting 450000 shares were credited in the demat account of the assessee. We also noticed that the name of company was changed from Tilak Finance Limited to OCTS and then changed to Tilak Ventures Limited. Out of these shares, only 109000 shares were sold during the period September, 2011. 14. And in order to prove the genuineness of transaction of trading in shares of Tilak Venture Limited, the assessee had furnished documents to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 10.12.2019 and which is enclosed at paper book page number 48 to 54, which contains: - i. A statement of determination of long term capital gain/loss on shares along with the copy of all the contract notes in Form number AA for the previous year ended 31 March, 2012 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 (enclosed at page number 55 to 65 of paper book). ii. The copy of the account of assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced on record. 17. Apart from above, the assessee vehemently asserted that she is neither related to the management of the said company, i.e M/s Tilak Ventures Limited nor to the recognized stock broker through whom transactions of sale had been carried out on the online platform of the Stock Exchange during the year under consideration. The AO has failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the assessee had paid any cash in lieu of cheques received from brokers towards sale consideration of shares, to disprove the bonafides of the transaction. 18. On the contrary, the AO failed to furnish to the assessee, copies of the information relied upon and material seized by the department at the back of assessee, copies of statements of so-called entry operators recorded by investigation wing and also not allowing cross examination of such persons (who are departmental witnesses). Therefore, in our view some generic information based on few unconnected trades as received from Investigation wing, cannot be been used to paint all trades in that script with the same brush, especially when assessee's name in particular has not even figured in that report for any wrongdoing. ....