2018 (1) TMI 1080 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchase/sale of shares - Addition on account of sham share transactions - ITAT upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition - Held that - Issue raised is to be decided against appellant as relying on The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) , Ludhiana Versus Sh. Hitesh Gandhi 2017 (4) TMI 1150 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT as held AO was not able to contradict the facts regarding purchase of shares and sale thereof. Further, it was recorded that the assessee had sold shares through MTL shares and Stock Broker limited which is a SEBI registered Stock Broker. The payment for sale of shares was received through banking channels. All the documentary evidence being in favour of assessee, the deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A) was correctly upheld by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue Addition made on the basis of seized document - ITAT confirming deletion of addition - Held that - The documents on which the Assessing Officer relied upon in the appeal were not put to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) nevertheless considered them in detail and found that there was no co-relation between the amounts sought to be added and the entries in those documents. This was on an appreciation of facts. There is nothing to indicate that the same was perverse or irrational. Accordingly, no question of law arises.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of addition made by the AO on account of sham share transactions.
2. Whether the ITAT erred in ignoring important aspects related to the transactions of shares.
3. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of another addition made by the AO based on seized documents.
4. Whether there is any substantial question of law in the present appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the ITAT's decision upholding the deletion of an addition of ?4,11,77,474 made by the AO on account of sham share transactions. The appellant argued that various factors suggested the non-genuineness of the transaction, such as the purchase price, sale consideration, and the worth of the company at the time of purchase/sale. However, the Court noted that similar issues had been addressed in a previous judgment (ITA-18-2017) where it was held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence to support the suspicion of fictitious transactions. In the absence of concrete evidence and considering the trading was done through the National Stock Exchange with transactions routed through the bank, the Court found no substantial question of law in this appeal.

Issue 2:
The appellant also raised concerns about the ITAT ignoring important aspects related to the sham transactions of shares. The Court highlighted that in cases where there is an abnormal hike in the value of shares, the Assessing Officer is justified in drawing inferences from the circumstances. However, based on the previous judgment and the lack of evidence supporting the suspicion of fictitious transactions, the Court found no substantial question of law in this regard.

Issue 3:
Regarding the addition of ?12,59,000 made by the AO based on seized documents, the appellant contested the ITAT's decision to delete this addition. The Court observed that the CIT (Appeals) had thoroughly examined the documents and found no correlation between the amounts sought to be added and the entries in those documents. As this analysis was based on facts and not deemed irrational or perverse, the Court concluded that no question of law arose in this matter.

Issue 4:
The Court addressed the overall issue of whether there was any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Given the previous judgment and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the suspicion of fictitious transactions, the Court found no substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in establishing the genuineness of transactions and the need for substantial questions of law to be raised for consideration in such cases.