2015 (3) TMI 965 - AT - Income Tax

Income from undisclosed sources - transaction of sale & purchase of shares - CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in treating the income from long term capital gain as income from undisclosed sources on the ground that the whole arrangement or scheme is a money laundering device to convert the unaccounted money and to bring the same into the regular books of account in the garb of exempted long term capital gain on sale of shares - Held that - Considering the totality of the facts of the case and relying on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Surendra Peety and others (2015 (3) TMI 921 - ITAT PUNE) and considering the fact that assessee has filed the relevant details before the Assessing Officer which have not been proved to be false or untrue and further considering the fact that the broker has not taken the name of the present assessee specifically we find no reason to reject the claim of long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee on account of sale of shares of Database Finance Ltd. We accordingly set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of long term capital gain on account of sale of shares of Database Finance Ltd. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,38,600/- as income from undisclosed sources by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified.
2. Whether the transaction of sale and purchase of shares was genuine or merely an accommodation entry.
3. Whether the long-term capital gain claimed by the assessee on the sale of shares should be allowed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 10,38,600/- as Income from Undisclosed Sources:
The assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 2,52,380/-, which included capital gains from the sale of shares amounting to Rs. 10,24,019/-. The AO received information about irregularities in the sale of shares and issued a notice under section 148. The AO concluded that the share transactions were accommodation entries to introduce unaccounted income into the books and treated the sale receipts of Rs. 10,38,600/- as income from other sources. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the transactions were part of a money laundering scheme to convert unaccounted money into regular books under the guise of exempted long-term capital gains.

2. Genuineness of the Transaction:
The assessee provided various documents to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions, including contract notes, share certificates, and details of the demat account. The CIT(A) noted statements from brokers indicating that the transactions were not genuine and were merely accommodation entries. The brokers admitted to issuing backdated contract notes and bogus bills to facilitate the claim of long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) concluded that the transactions were manipulated to show a long-term holding period and artificially inflated sale prices.

3. Allowance of Long-term Capital Gain:
The assessee argued that the documentary evidence submitted was not disputed by the AO and that the sale proceeds were received through account payee cheques. The assessee cited various judicial precedents where similar claims of long-term capital gains were allowed. The Tribunal considered the decision in the case of Surendra Peety and others, where the claim of long-term capital gains on the sale of shares of Database Finance Ltd. was allowed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided relevant details, and there was no specific evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the claim of long-term capital gain should be allowed and set aside the order of the CIT(A).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the AO to allow the claim of long-term capital gain on the sale of shares of Database Finance Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions, and there was no specific evidence proving the transactions to be false. The Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Surendra Peety and others and other judicial precedents to support its conclusion.