2016 (1) TMI 603 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares - book entries taken for long term capital gains. - Held that - As per provisions of Section 68 of the Act assessee has to prove the nature of credit appearing in the books and also identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the credits appearing in his books of accounts. In the case of assessee, the credit of ₹ 16,15,188/- was received by the assessee from the broker through whom the shares were sold. Therefore, the nature of credit in the books was explained. The identity of the share broker was also established by the assessee by filing the contract note and other details of M/s. Sushil Finance Consultants Ltd., through whom the shares were sold. The creditworthiness of the share broker was not doubted by the Assessing Officer. Further, the genuineness of the transactions i.e. the credits in the books of assessee was also explained as received on account of sale of shares by the assessee. The existence of shares of 150000 in the hands of assessee was also established by filing concerned demat account. Therefore, the conditions for making addition under section 68 were missing in the case of the assessee. In view of the above the CIT(A) was justified in observing that the addition made under section 68 of the Act are not justified and the same were rightly deleted by him - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares.
3. Compliance with the requirements of Section 68 regarding unexplained cash credits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 16,15,188/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had added this amount, claiming it was unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. Genuineness of Transactions of Purchase and Sale of Shares:
The AO questioned the genuineness of the transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Shukun Construction. The AO noted that 150000 shares were purchased for Rs. 65,961/- on 31.07.2003 and sold for Rs. 16,15,188/- on 15.12.2004. The AO issued notices to the brokers involved, but received no responses. The AO also highlighted that the shares were purchased in cash and were dematerialized just a month before their sale, raising doubts about the authenticity of the transactions.

During the assessment, the assessee provided various documents, including contract notes, payment vouchers, and demat statements, to substantiate the transactions. The AO, however, remained unconvinced, citing the lack of response from the brokers and the unusual appreciation in the share value within a short period.

3. Compliance with Section 68 Requirements:
The CIT(A) reviewed the evidence and concluded that the assessee had adequately explained the nature of the credit, the identity of the creditor (broker), and the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had filed contract notes for both purchase and sale of shares, ledger accounts, receipts for cash payments, and demat statements showing the shares credited to the assessee's account.

The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not make any addition regarding the purchase of shares, implying acceptance of the purchase transaction. The only addition was related to the sale proceeds, which were received through banking channels, further establishing the genuineness of the transactions.

The CIT(A) concluded that the conditions for making an addition under Section 68 were not met, as the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature, identity, and genuineness of the credits. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the reasoned findings. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the deletion of the addition of Rs. 16,15,188/- under Section 68 was confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the transactions, meeting the requirements of Section 68.

← Previous Next →