9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 559 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credits u/s 68 - Bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) / Long Term Capital Loss - Held that - Revenue fails to indicate any specific evidence against the assessee in above terms qua his LTCG derived from transfer of share in Jackson Investments Ltd. Therefore adopt the above extracted reasoning mutatis mutandis to delete the impugned bogus LTCG addition Same order to follow in all remaining twelve cases as well since notice that there is no specific evidence co-relating these assessee with any kind of rigging of share price. All these impugned LTCG/losses addition(s) (supra) are reversed in these fact and circumstances.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and Long Term Capital Losses (LTCL) as bogus unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of unexplained commission expenditure. 3. Lack of specific evidence against the assessees regarding share price rigging. Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of LTCG and LTCL as Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits: The primary issue in these appeals was the treatment of LTCG and LTCL derived from the transfer of shares in various entities as bogus unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officers (AOs) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had adopted an identical line of reasoning in treating these gains and losses as bogus. They considered the transactions to be part of a scheme involving stock market price rigging in collusion with various entity operators. In the lead case (ITA No. 2235/Kol/2018), the AO had undertaken a detailed investigation into the stock market prices, alleging that the assessee's investments were in companies with no sound financial position or business activity to justify the LTCG. The AO's findings were supported by case law such as Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR (SC), which emphasized the need to look beyond the apparent transactions to the real nature of the gains. 2. Disallowance of Unexplained Commission Expenditure: In some cases, there were disallowances of unexplained commission expenditure. However, the judgment did not delve deeply into this issue, focusing primarily on the treatment of LTCG and LTCL. 3. Lack of Specific Evidence Against Assessees: Upon reviewing the case files and hearing the representatives, it emerged that there was no specific evidence linking the assessees to any share price rigging activities. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had relied on general observations and suspicions rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal referenced several past judgments to support its decision, including: - Sanjeev Goel (HUF) vs. ITO (ITA No. 354/Kol/2018): The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar case, emphasizing the need for specific evidence to prove collusion or bogus transactions. - Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO (ITA No. 2281/Kol/2017): The Tribunal highlighted that evidence collected from third parties could not be used against an assessee unless it was put before them and they were given an opportunity to controvert it. The Tribunal stressed that general observations about market manipulation could not replace specific evidence against the individual assessee. - Various Other Judgments: The Tribunal cited multiple cases where the courts had ruled that suspicion and preponderance of human probabilities could not replace concrete evidence. These included decisions from the Kolkata ITAT, the Calcutta High Court, and the Supreme Court, which consistently held that the onus was on the revenue authorities to prove the bogus nature of transactions with specific evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the revenue authorities had failed to provide specific evidence linking the assessees to any collusive activities or bogus transactions. The documentary evidence provided by the assessees, such as bills, contract notes, bank statements, and demat statements, was not found to be false or fictitious. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all thirteen appeals, reversing the additions made by the lower authorities and deleting the impugned bogus LTCG and LTCL additions. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in open court on 28/02/2019, allowing all thirteen appeals and directing that a copy of the common order be placed in the respective appeal files.
|
