2024 (12) TMI 1213 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 treating gains from shares as bogus - AO observed that assessee had made huge profit out of this investment because of this, it makes the script as suspicious and penny stock - HELD THAT - We cannot agree to the AO observation, merely because of huge profit, it does not make the script a penny stock. The financials of the company are not commensurate with the purchase and sale price in the market. Assessee has purchased the shares directly from the company and through share transfer from other party, subsequently, sold the same in the stock exchange. There is no discrepancies in the documents filed by the assessee claiming the deductions u/s 10(38). Even though all the characteristics of the penny stock exists in the present case, still the revenue has not brought on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry, price rigging or exit providers. Even in the SEBI report, there is no mention or reference to the involvement of the assessee. We can only presume that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in these transactions merely as an investor who has entered in investment fray to make quick profit. Even the AO has applied the presumptions and concept of human probabilities to make the additions without their being any material against the assessee. AO and CIT(A) has applied the concept of Human probabilities and held the above said scrips to be a penny stock without bring on record how the assessee is involved in any of the scrupulous activities or directly linked to one of the person who has involved in manipulation/rigging of share prices, entry operator or exit provider as observed in the case of Ziauddin A Siddique 2022 (3) TMI 1437 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Therefore, there is no material with the tax authorities to substantiate their findings that the impugned transaction is non-genuine. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) after filing a revised return.
2. Sustaining addition under Section 68 treating gains from shares as bogus.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice and denial of cross-examination.
4. Assessment based on assumptions without legally admissible evidence.
5. Disregard of legally admissible evidence submitted by the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-issuance of Notice under Section 143(2):

The assessee contended that the assessment order was invalid as no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the filing of a revised return, which is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. The tribunal emphasized that the failure to issue such notice renders the assessment proceedings void ab initio, as supported by judicial precedents. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hotel Blue Moon, highlighting that the issuance of this notice is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional prerequisite.

2. Sustaining Addition under Section 68:

The tribunal examined the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68, treating the gains from shares of Channel Nine Entertainment as bogus. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, including contract notes, DEMAT account statements, and bank statements, to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The tribunal noted that the AO's reliance on presumptions and the concept of human probabilities, without any concrete evidence linking the assessee to dubious transactions, was insufficient to justify the addition. The tribunal cited decisions from higher courts, emphasizing that mere suspicion cannot substitute for substantive evidence.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The assessee argued that the AO relied on statements from third parties without offering an opportunity for cross-examination, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The tribunal agreed, noting that the denial of cross-examination constitutes a serious flaw, rendering the assessment order null and void. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, which held that reliance on statements without allowing cross-examination amounts to a violation of natural justice.

4. Assessment Based on Assumptions:

The tribunal criticized the AO's reliance on assumptions and conjectures, such as the sudden increase in share prices, without bringing any legally admissible evidence on record. The tribunal highlighted that the AO failed to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, which substantiated the genuineness of the transactions. The tribunal reiterated that assessments must be based on evidence and proof, not mere suspicion or assumptions.

5. Disregard of Legally Admissible Evidence:

The tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by submitting legally admissible evidence, including contract notes and DEMAT account statements. The AO's disregard of this evidence and reliance on extraneous materials, such as SEBI reports lacking direct nexus with the assessee's case, was deemed arbitrary and unsustainable. The tribunal emphasized that once the taxpayer provides credible evidence, the burden shifts to the revenue authorities to bring contrary evidence, which was not done in this case.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years, concluding that the assessment orders were invalid due to the non-issuance of mandatory notices, reliance on assumptions without evidence, and violation of principles of natural justice. The tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and adherence to established legal principles.

← Previous Next →