2024 (11) TMI 1020 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Bogus share transaction - assessee had carried out the transactions have been alleged to have been indulged in price manipulations and the SEBI had also passed an order regarding irregularities and synchronized trades carried out in the shares by the said broker - HELD THAT - Since the AO has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging and further the AO did not find fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee. We noticed earlier that the AO has assessed the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the purchase of shares made in an earlier year has been accepted by the Revenue. The sale of shares has taken place in the online platform of the Stock Exchange and the sale consideration has been received through the stock broker in banking channels. Hence, in the facts of the case, the sale consideration cannot be considered to be unexplained cash credit in terms of sec. 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act relating to sale consideration of shares. Decided in favour of assessee. Assessment of the deposits made into the bank account and disallowance of claim of interest expenditure u/s 24 - In the interest of natural justice, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on both these issues and restore them to the file of the AO for examining them afresh. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious completion of assessment.

Issues Involved:

1. Assessment of sale proceeds of shares rejecting the claim of long-term capital gains.
2. Addition of deposits found in the bank account of the assessees.
3. Disallowance of deduction of interest claimed under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act against property income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment of Sale Proceeds of Shares:

The primary issue concerns the assessment of the sale proceeds from shares sold by the assessees, which were initially claimed as long-term capital gains and exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees purchased shares in M/s Paridhi Properties Ltd, which later merged with M/s Luminaire Technologies Ltd. The shares were sold through the stock exchange, and the assessees declared the gains as exempt. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim, citing a report from the Investigation Wing of Kolkata that identified the shares as part of a "penny stock" scheme used to generate bogus capital gains. The AO assessed the entire sale consideration as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, a decision upheld by the CIT(A).

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the AO relied heavily on a generalized investigation report without specific evidence linking the assessees to the alleged price manipulation. The Tribunal emphasized that the transactions were conducted through legitimate channels, including dematerialization and sale through the stock exchange, with consideration received via banking channels. The Tribunal referenced several High Court judgments, including those from the Bombay High Court, which highlighted the necessity for concrete evidence of manipulation or involvement in price rigging to substantiate claims of bogus transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no basis for the AO's conclusions and directed the deletion of the additions made under Section 68.

2. Addition of Deposits in Bank Accounts:

The second issue pertains to the addition of deposits found in the bank accounts of the assessees. The AO made these additions due to the assessees' failure to provide the requested evidence during the assessment process. The Tribunal, considering the request from the assessees' representative, decided to restore this issue to the AO for a fresh examination. The Tribunal instructed the assessees to cooperate fully and furnish the necessary evidence to facilitate the reassessment.

3. Disallowance of Interest Deduction under Section 24:

The final issue involves the disallowance of interest claimed under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act against property income. Similar to the bank deposits, this disallowance was due to the lack of evidence provided by the assessees. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, remanded this issue back to the AO for a re-evaluation, with a directive for the assessees to provide comprehensive evidence and cooperate during the reassessment process.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed both appeals, directing the deletion of additions related to the sale of shares and remanding the issues of bank deposits and interest disallowance back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for specific evidence to substantiate claims of bogus transactions and underscored the importance of procedural fairness in the assessment process.

← Previous Next →