9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 174 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of sale value of shares Transaction treated as cash credits instead of LTCG Held that - The assessee has claimed to have purchased the impugned shares through Off market transaction CIT(A) rightly was of the view that the transactions of the assessee in shares of Prime Capital Market were not genuine Relying upon Sumati Dayal Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax 1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court - the assessee has adopted the methodology of acquiring the Long Term Capital Gains in order to convert her black money into white - The purchase price was not paid by cheque, but it was claimed to have been adjusted against the speculation profit claimed to have been made by the assessee - the assessee could not produce the copies of share certificates and copies of share transfer forms - The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified - The shares of M/s Prime Capital Markets Ltd was declared as Penny Stock by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicted for manipulating the prices of penny stock shares - the tax authorities have rightly applied the test of human probabilities to examine the claim of purchase and sale of shares made by the assessee - The claim of making speculation gains on the reasoning that speculation transactions could not have been entered into by the assessee therein without paying margin money to the broker - the claim of purchase of shares was rejected by the Tribunal and consequently the claim of sale of shares was also rejected - CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order of the AO by applying the test of human probabilities Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of sale value of shares as Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of whether the transactions in shares were genuine and supported by relevant documents. 3. Application of the "test of human probabilities" to the transactions in question. 4. Reliance on previous judicial decisions and their applicability to the current case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment of Sale Value of Shares as Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee reported a Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 7,53,061/- from the sale of shares of Prime Capital Market Ltd and claimed it as exempt. The Assessing Officer (AO) reclassified this amount as unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on the AO's findings that the transactions were not executed through the stock exchange and lacked proper documentation, such as share certificates and share transfer forms. 2. Determination of Whether the Transactions in Shares Were Genuine and Supported by Relevant Documents: The assessee claimed to have purchased 2700 shares of Prime Capital Market Ltd at Rs. 5.17 per share in an off-market transaction through a broker, M/s D.K. Khandelwal & Co. The shares were later sold at Rs. 279.50 per share through another broker, Sanju Kabra. The AO's investigation revealed inconsistencies, such as the absence of share certificates and transfer forms, and the inability of M/s D.K. Khandelwal & Co. to produce contract notes or books of accounts. Additionally, the company from which the shares were purchased, M/s Brightsun Merchants Pvt Ltd, could not be traced. 3. Application of the "Test of Human Probabilities" to the Transactions in Question: The AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] applied the "test of human probabilities" as outlined by the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal and Durga Prasad More, to conclude that the transactions were not genuine. They noted that the shares were declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and that the broker Sanju Kabra was indicted for manipulating penny stock prices. The AO concluded that the assessee used the transactions to convert black money into white. 4. Reliance on Previous Judicial Decisions and Their Applicability to the Current Case: The assessee's counsel cited several judicial decisions to argue the genuineness of the transactions, including cases from the Pune and Mumbai benches of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court. However, the Tribunal found that these cases were not applicable as they did not consider the "test of human probabilities" or involved different factual circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to produce convincing evidence of the transactions, which was not met in this case. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the sale value of shares as unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions and that the tax authorities rightly applied the "test of human probabilities." The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
|
