2025 (2) TMI 760 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - exemption u/s 10(38) denied - HELD THAT - Addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act in both the years under consideration are devoid of any merit. The claim of the assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act has been made based on facts which could not be rebutted by the AO. The documentary evidences could not be rejected without bringing on record any substantial piece of evidence and just on the basis of certain individuals who also were not produced for cross examination of their stated stands - AO is therefore directed to delete the additions made u/s 68. Addition on account of estimated commission at the rate of 2% - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - Since we have already decided the issue of LTCG in the foregoing paras and deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act thus holding the share transactions as genuine the above ground of the Revenue has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the addition of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on the sale of shares, claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act was justified.
• Whether the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were premature.
• Whether the deletion of the addition made on account of estimated commission under section 69C of the Act was appropriate.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Addition of LTCG as Unexplained Credit under Section 68

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves sections 10(38) and 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The precedents include various judgments from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and ITAT Mumbai, which have dealt with similar issues concerning the genuineness of transactions involving penny stocks.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) relied heavily on the generalized report from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, without bringing specific evidence to show that the assessee's transactions were part of manipulated transactions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided substantial documentation, including bank statements, demat account statements, and contract notes, to support the genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to find defects in these documents or provide evidence of the assessee's involvement in price manipulation.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from relevant case law, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot replace concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted through recognized stock exchanges and involved payment through banking channels.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments from both the assessee and the Revenue. The assessee argued that the AO did not provide evidence to support the allegations of bogus transactions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, supported by precedents.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition of LTCG as unexplained credit under section 68 was not justified due to the lack of concrete evidence and reliance on generalized reports.

Issue 2: Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)

• Relevant Legal Framework: Section 271(1)(c) deals with penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were premature as no penalty order had been passed.
• Conclusions: The ground relating to penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

Issue 3: Deletion of Addition on Account of Estimated Commission under Section 69C

• Relevant Legal Framework: Section 69C pertains to unexplained expenditure.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the AO did not establish a basis for estimating the commission at 2% and failed to provide cogent material evidence for the expenditure.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the estimated commission addition, finding the AO's basis for the estimation unsupported by evidence.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion alone cannot replace concrete evidence and that the AO's reliance on generalized reports without specific evidence was insufficient to justify the addition under section 68."
• Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish the non-genuineness of transactions, particularly when the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence supporting the transactions.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made under section 68 for both assessment years, upheld the deletion of the estimated commission addition under section 69C, and dismissed the penalty proceedings as premature.