2013 (2) TMI 98 - HC - Income Tax

Treating entire sale proceed as long term capital gains - as per AO transaction could not be regarded as genuine sale and purchase of shares - Held that - CIT (A) after considering entire evidence of record found that purchase and sale transactions were proved. He further found that payment of the sale price was made to the assessee through bank channel and not in cash as such the transactions are actual transactions and not a fictitious accommodation entries. The sale transactions cannot be disbelieved only for the reason that the assessee could not give the identity of the purchasers. Arguments of the Senior Standing Counsel in this respect is not liable to be accepted.

Issues:
1. Justification of treating entire sale proceeds as long term capital gains without disclosing purchaser's identity.
2. Treatment of sale proceeds as long term capital gains despite the company's heavy losses.
3. Comparison with a similar case involving long term capital gains on sale of shares.

Issue 1:
The appeal questioned the Tribunal's decision to treat the entire sale proceeds as long term capital gains without disclosing the purchaser's identity. The appellant argued that without proving the identities of both the purchaser and seller, the transactions could not be considered genuine. The appellant contended that failure to provide transfer deeds and purchaser information rendered the transactions suspicious. However, the respondent defended the validity of the transactions based on documentary evidence provided, including purchase bills, sale bills, and bank draft payments, proving the actual sale and purchase transactions. The respondent emphasized that the payment was made through bank drafts, not in cash, supporting the authenticity of the transactions. The CIT (A) had already found the purchase and sale transactions to be valid, and the Tribunal upheld this decision.

Issue 2:
The second issue raised was the treatment of sale proceeds as long term capital gains despite the company incurring heavy losses. The appellant argued that the company's losses during the assessment year indicated that the transactions were bogus accommodation entries. However, the respondent countered this argument by stating that the increase in the company's asset value should have resulted in dividends if the transactions were not genuine. The respondent further highlighted that the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, including various financial records and confirmations from brokers, supported the legitimacy of the transactions. The CIT (A) had previously ruled in favor of the assessee based on the evidence presented, and the Tribunal upheld this decision.

Issue 3:
The third issue involved comparing the current case with a similar case where long term capital gains on the sale of shares were disputed. The appellant pointed out discrepancies in the treatment of transactions between the two cases, emphasizing that the Tribunal did not follow its own judgment in the previous case. However, the respondent argued that each case had to be evaluated based on the evidence presented. The respondent highlighted the extensive documentary evidence provided by the assessee in the current case, which proved the authenticity of the transactions. The Tribunal's decision in a related case was upheld by the High Court, indicating consistency in handling such matters. The lack of distinguishing features to warrant a different outcome was noted by the Court.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the treatment of sale proceeds as long term capital gains. The Court found that the documentary evidence presented by the assessee supported the authenticity of the transactions, despite challenges raised by the appellant regarding purchaser identity and company losses. The consistency in judgments and the lack of distinguishing features to deviate from precedent led to the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →