2018 (2) TMI 1828 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus share transactions - addition u/s 68 - claim of LTCG disallowed - income from other sources - Held that - The material available on record clearly indicates that the shares were purchased and sold at the market rate through recognised broker of Security Exchange Board of India. When the assessees established the fact that the shares were purchased on the market rate through recognised broker, it cannot be said that the price of the shares were artificially hiked for earning higher income. The Revenue authorities cannot ignore the material available on record merely because somebody has provided accommodation entry to somebody. The assessment proceeding being a judicial proceeding, the authorities below cannot take into consideration the extraneous matter, which is not relevant to the issue arises for consideration. When the fact that the purchase and sale of shares through recognised stock broker is established and the shares were purchased and sold at market rate, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that both the authorities below are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of short term capital gain as income from other sources due to alleged bogus share transactions.

Analysis:
The appeals were against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) orders for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessees purchased shares through a registered broker and declared profit as short term capital gain. The Assessing Officer alleged the shares were bogus due to an individual providing accommodation entries. The assessees provided evidence of purchase and sale through Contract Notes and bank statements. The Departmental Representative requested remittance for further assessment, but the Tribunal found the transactions legitimate. The Tribunal noted the shares were bought and sold at market rates through a recognized broker, rejecting the allegation of artificially inflated prices. The authorities were criticized for not considering relevant evidence and unjustly disallowing the assessees' claims. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted, and the appeals were allowed.