9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata dated 14.03.2017 in case No.219-CIT(A)-10/W-35(3)/16-17/Kol involving proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee s sole substantive ground challenges both the lower authorities identical action terming its Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of ₹34,25,766/- to be bogus thereby adding the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. We deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce CIT(A) s detailed findings affirming the Assessing Officer s action to this effect as follows:- 07. DECISION: 1. I have carefully examined the action of the Ld. AO in treating an amount of ₹ 34,25,766/- , claimed by the appellant as LTCG as bogus. The Ld. AO has very by the assessee-individual. The economic parameters of the said company over the period March 2010 to March 2014 have also been brought on record, in the analysis. The rise and fall of the prices as recorded had been brought out by the Ld. AO to be business at all. 2. The Ld. AO has also brought forth information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee about the nature and source thereof Is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such case there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, vtz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being unrebutted, can be used against him by holding that it is a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably. ........... Having regard to the conduct of the appellant as disclosed in her sworn statement as well as other material on the record, an inference could reasonably be drawn that the winning tickets were purchased by the appellant after the event. The majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. It could not be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts had been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts were income of the appellant from other sources was not based on evidence. CIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or his statement or explanation is contradictory, drawing of suitable Inferences and estimation of facts is inevitable. Courts generally will not interfere with such estimate of facts, unless the inferences or estimates are perverse or capricious. 6.15. The Assessee's technical contentions about admissibility and reliance on material available on the AO's record are In the nature of contentions challenging criminal or civil liabilities in a court of law. We are dealing with a process of adjudication of assesses tax liability I.e. assessment under Income Tax Act rather than conducting criminal or civil court proceedings. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of S.S. Gadgll (supra) no ' lis ' is involved in adjudication of tax liability. The Assessee's contention that there was no new material before the AO after the CIT(A)'s setting aside order cannot be accepted. New information and material did indeed come on record. In our view, in a sensitive matter like this, even a Single clue or revelation can be of great Importance. To reverse the order of the AO on this technical plea will amount to taking a lopsided view of the proceedings. Bes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port. The Revenue s case therefore is that impugned addition is liable to be sustained. 5. We are given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We first of all find that this tribunal s co-ordinate bench s order in Neeraj Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No.863/Kol/2018 rejects Revenue s identical arguments regarding the said assessee s LTCG derived from sale of shares held in M/s NCL Research Finance Services Ltd. as follows:- 2. The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s UNNO Industries Limited and M/s NCL Research Financial Services Ltd. The AO based on a general report and modus operandi adopted generally in these cases and on general observations has concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain. He made an addition of the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income and rejected the claim of exemption made u/s 10(38) of the Act. The evidence produced by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transactions was rejected. 3.The assessee carried the matter in ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal, Legal Heir of Late Kiran 20.07.2018 ITAT Kolkata Agarwal vs ITO, Ward-35(3), Calcutta ITA No. 863/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Neerj Gupta. 5. I am bound by the proposition of law laid down in these case law. They are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not leaving his ground, could not controvert the claim of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue in question is covered by the above cited decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and the ITAT. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative filed detailed written submissions and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Rakhi Trading Private Ltd in Civil Appeal No.1969 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos. 3174-3177 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No.3180 of 2011. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there is no surviving order of SEBI against the assessee or the company, the script of which was purchased and sold by the assessee. When there is no surviving adverse order of SEBI, against the claim of the assessee, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report as the basis for the addition. The evidence based on which the DDIT report is prepared is not brought on record by the AO nor is it put before the assessee. The submission of the assessee that she is just an investor and as she received some tips and she chose to invest based on these market tips and had taken a calculated risk and had gained in the process and that she is not party to the scam etc., has to be controverted by the revenue with evidence. When a person claims that she has done these transactions in a bona fide and genuine manner and was benefitted, one cannot reject this submission based on surmises and conjectures. As the report of investigation wing suggests, there are more than 60,000 beneficiaries of LTCG. Each case has to be assessed based on legal principles of legal import laid down by the Courts of law. 15.In our view, just the modus operandi, generalisation, preponderance of human probabilities cannot be the only basis for rejecting the claim of the assessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter should be sent to the assessment wing to assess the income as per law. We find no such action executed by investigation wing against the assessee. In absence of any finding specifically against the assessee in the investigation wing report, the assessee cannot be held to be guilty or linked to the wrong acts of the persons investigated. In this case, in our view, the Assessing Officer at best could have considered the investigation report as a starting point of investigation. The report only informed the assessing officer that some persons may have misused the script for the purpose of collusive transaction. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to make inquiry from all concerned parties relating to the transaction and then to collect evidences that the transaction entered into by the assessee was also a collusive transaction. We, however, find that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 17. The Hon ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the Tribunal was equally perverse or vitiated if the Tribunal took count of all these probabilities and without any rhyme or reason and merely by a rule of thumb, as it were, came to the conclusion that the possession of 150 high denomination notes of ₹ 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of ₹ 1,000 each . The observations of the Hon ble Apex Court are equally applicable to the case of the assessee. In our view, the assessing officer having failed to bring on record any material to prove that the transaction of the assessee was a collusive transaction could not have rejected the evidences submitted by the assessee. In fact, in this case nothing has been found against the assessee with aid of any direct evidences or material against the assessee despite the matter being investigated by various wings of the Income Tax Department hence in our view under these circumstances nothing can be implicated against the assessee. 18. We now consider the various propositions of law laid down by the Courts of law. That cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat, not only should the opportunity of cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. b) Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II wherein it was held that: 4. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the Assessee, and Mr. K.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 5. According to us, not allowing the Assessee to cross-examine the witnesses because of which the Assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the Assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the Assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the Assessee. However, no the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal has come to its conclusion on analysis of relevant materials. That Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed. b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL[ITA No.292/JP/2017]order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide Page 9 Para 3: We hold that the addition made by the AO is merely based on suspicion and assessee in support of the claim. Further, the AO has also failed to establish long term capital gain. Hence we delete the addition made by the AO on this account. c) The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PREMPAL GANDHI[ITA-95-2017(O M)] dated18.01.2018 at vide Page 3 Para 4 held as under: .. The Assessing Officer in both the cases added the appreciation to the assessee s income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessee s income from undisclosed sources. In ITA-18-2017 also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very payments and receipts were routed through the bank. There was no evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to fall. We take note that the ld. DR could not AO/CIT(A). We note that the allegations that the assesse/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore consequently fail. At and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. Neither these evidences were found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. the assessee exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. It is to be kept in mind that suspicion how so ever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. It further held as follows: We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered to arrive at our conclusion. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to support the impugned decision of the ld. CIT(A)/AO. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition. f) The BENCH A OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of SHALEEN KHEMANI[ITA No.1945/Kol/2014]order dated 18.10.2017 held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax in appeal, gives give rise to any question(s) of law as sought to be raised in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. i) The Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows: The tribunal found that the chain of transaction entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. The assessee produced before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) the showing that all payments were received by the assessee through bank. j) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Teju Rohit kumar Kapadia order dated 04.05.2018 upheld the following proposition of law laid down by the Hon ble Gujrat High Court as under: Account Payee cheque. Raj Impacts also confirmed the transactions. There was no evidence to show that the amount was recycled back to the assessee. Revenue, no question of law arises. 20. Applying the proposition of law as laid down in the above-mentioned judgments to the facts of this case we are bound to consider and rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
