2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Bogus LTCG - genuine v/s sham transaction - burden of proof - penny stock purchases - colourable devices adopted in the process or not? - reliance on expert advice to buy shares - manipulation of share prices Surabhi Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due - as per AO transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gains - revision u/s 263 by CIT set aside by ITAT - Whether Tribunal erred in ignoring the direct and circumstantial evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee had indulged in manipulation of the share prices of Surabhi Chemicals and Investment Limited with a view to record fictitious Long Term Capital Gains claiming these as exempt from taxation? -

HELD THAT:- Mere production of incorporation details, PANs or the fact that the third persons or the companies had filed income tax details in case of a private limited company may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up.

The assessee cannot take shelter under the opinion given by the experts as it is not the expert who has indulged in the transaction but it is the assessee. Therefore by following such experts advice if the assessee gets into an “web” it is for him to extricate himself from the tangle and he cannot reach out to the expert to bail him out. The assessees cannot be heard to say that they had blindly followed advice of a third party and made the investment. Selection of shares to be purchased is a very complex issue, it requires personal knowledge and expertise as the investment is not in a mutual fund. None of the assessees before us have shown to have to made any risk analysis before making their investment in a “penny stock”. If according to them they have blindly taken a decision to invest in insignificant companies they having done so at their own peril have to face the consequences. Thus, the conduct of the assessees before us probabilities the stand taken by the revenue, rightly the mind of the assessee as an investor was taken note to deny the claim for exemption. It is in this background that the human probabilities would assume significance.

As observed earlier the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities could very well be applied in cases like the present one. We say human probabilities to be the relevant factor as on account of the fact that the assessees are of individuals or Hindu Undivided Families and the trading has been done in the name of the individual assessee or by the Karta of the HUF. None of the assessee before us have been shown to big time investor. This is evident from the income details of the assessee which has been culled out by the respective assessing officers. Assuming that the assessee is a regular investor as was submitted to us by the learned advocates for the assessees that in any manner cannot improve the situation as the claim for LTCG has been only restricted to the shares which were purchased and sold by the assessees in penny stocks companies.

Therefore merely because the assessee had invested in other blue chit companies had earned profit or incurred loss cannot validate the tainted transactions. It has been established by the department that the rise of the prices of the shares was artificially done by the adopting manipulative practices. Consequently whatever resultant benefits which accrue from out of such manipulative practices are also to be treated as tainted. However, the assessee had opportunity to prove that there was no manipulation at the other end and whatever gains the assessee has reaped was not tainted. This has not been proved or established by any of the assessee before us. Therefore, the assessing officers were well justified in coming to a conclusion that the so called explanation offered by the assessee was not to their satisfaction. Thus, the assessee having not proved the genuineness of the claim, the creditworthiness of the companies in which they had invested and the identity of the persons to whom the transactions were done, have to necessarily fail. In such factual scenario, the Assessing Officers as well as the CIT(A) have adopted an inferential process which we find to be a process which would be followed by a reasonable and prudent person.

Assessing Officers and the CIT(A) have culled out proximate facts in each of the cases, took into consideration the surrounding circumstances which came to light after the investigation, assessed the conduct of the assessee, took note of the proximity of the time between the buy and sale operations and also the sudden and steep rise of the price of the shares of the companies when the general market trend was admittedly recessive and thereafter arrived at a conclusion which in our opinion is a proper conclusion and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation by the assessee, the Assessing Officers were bound to make addition under Section 68 .

Benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme - As there is no vested right for an assessee to come under the Scheme and this finding was rendered by us after examining the provisions of the V.S.V. Act, secondly we have held that cases cannot be decided based on hypothesis nor can the Court read the mind of the assessee that in the event, the revenue had filed appeal on time, the assessee may have availed the benefit under the V.S.V. Scheme. In fact, we find that the Comptroller and Auditor General has also severely commented upon the action taken by the Income Tax Department on such issues and that no uniform procedure had been followed by the various Income Tax Officers and in certain cases the assessments were not even reopened. Therefore, merely because in certain cases, appeals were preferred within the relevant time enabling, those assessees to avail the benefit of the V.S.V. Scheme can in no manner advance the case of the assessees before us.

The SEBI Regulations cast very onerous responsibilities on the share brokers. However, the trend appears that the penny stock companies have no business or very little business got involved with the stock brokers and it is stated that the share brokers receive commission for allowing the paper entities to trade through their terminal and some of the brokers have also stated to be performing the trading activity themselves on behalf of the paper companies. The report states as to why the department has taken an investigation as a project, largely due to huge syndicate of the entry operators, share brokers and money launderers.

The report states that Kolkata is a very distinctive place among the cities of India, so far as the accommodation entry is concerned and action has been initiated against more than thirty share broking entities and more than twenty entry operators working in Kolkata. The report states that almost everyone has accepted its activity, participation in providing accommodation entry of LTCG. The investigation has also indicated as to how the scheme of merger is being misused. Though the scheme of merger is approved by the Company Court, in the event it is found that such merger was done/ obtained by playing fraud, the Company Court is empowered to revoke the order and it appears that the Income Tax Department has not taken any steps in this regard to approach the Company Court or the Tribunal with such a prayer. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the CIT(A) affirming the orders passed by the Assessing Officers as well as the orders passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions.

The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue is with regard to the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in interfering with the order of the CIT(A) who affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer making the addition under Section 68

For all the above reasons, we hold that the Tribunal committed a serious error in setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) who had affirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer and equally the Tribunal committed a serious error both on law and fact in interfering with the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 - Decided in favour of revenue.