2015 (1) TMI 1410 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - bogus share transactions - Held that - AO has not doubted the purchase of the shares. He has doubted the sale consideration of the shares, as there was substantial increase in the value of shares. In order to establish the sale transaction to be genuine, the assessee has placed copy of the quotations of the Stock Exchange as on 12.3.2003, in which the rate of shares of Nageshwar Investment was shown at 58.20 and 64. The shares were sold on 23.3.2003 at ₹ 67.05 per share, though the quotation as on 23.3.2003 is not available on record, but in the light of the quotation dated 12.3.2003, the contention of the assessee that shares were sold at ₹ 67.05 per share cannot be doubted. No doubt was raised by the AO in the purchase of shares. The sale consideration declared by the assessee should not be doubted only for the reason that the value of the shares have been increased to 30 times within a span of 15 months. In the case of share transaction, sometimes the value of shares may increase many fold within a span of short period. But for this reason, the transaction cannot be doubted - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged improbability and manipulation of share transactions.
3. Non-production of transfer deeds and other documents.
4. Evidence of cash deposits in broker's bank account.
5. Similar bogus transactions in other cases.
6. Restoration of the Assessing Officer's order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 21,52,517/- added under section 68, contending that the income from share transactions was actually undisclosed income from other sources. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added this amount, doubting the credit entries related to the sale proceeds of shares, despite accepting the source of investment in shares.

2. Alleged Improbability and Manipulation of Share Transactions:
The AO doubted the steep increase in the value of shares of Nageshwar Investment Ltd. (NIL) and Supreme Agro Products Ltd. (SAPL), suggesting manipulation by brokers. The assessee argued that NIL was a listed company and shares were sold at market rates, with transactions conducted through demat accounts or physical delivery via transfer deeds. The AO's observations were deemed conjectural and not based on evidence.

3. Non-production of Transfer Deeds and Other Documents:
The AO noted the failure to produce transfer deeds for NIL shares and purchase bills for SAPL shares. The assessee countered that shares were sold in the open market, and relevant documents were lodged with Karvy Consultants or provided to brokers. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide adverse material for confrontation, making adverse inferences unjustified.

4. Evidence of Cash Deposits in Broker's Bank Account:
The AO cited cash deposits in the broker's (Shri Rajendra Prasad Shah) bank account as indicative of accommodation entries. The assessee argued that the broker's bank transactions were independent of the assessee, who received payments through legitimate channels. The CIT(A) agreed that the AO's allegations lacked supporting material.

5. Similar Bogus Transactions in Other Cases:
The AO referenced a similar case where another assessee surrendered income from NIL shares. The CIT(A) held that the assessee was not bound by another's decision, and the AO's reliance on such cases without direct evidence against the assessee was improper.

6. Restoration of the Assessing Officer's Order:
The Revenue sought to quash the CIT(A)'s order and restore the AO's findings. The Tribunal, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's conclusions were based on conjecture and lacked substantive evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the purchase of shares was not disputed, and the sale transactions were conducted at market rates through proper channels.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. It concluded that the AO's addition under section 68 was based on suspicion and conjecture without adequate evidence. The assessee's transactions were found to be genuine, supported by demat accounts, market quotations, and proper documentation. The Tribunal underscored that in the absence of concrete evidence, suspicion alone could not justify additions under the Income Tax Act.