9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T KOLKATA] wherein long term capital gain on sale of M/s KPL was allowed by this Tribunal. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal of this bench in the case of Usha Singhania (supra), and taking note of the documents filed by assessee to prove the veracity of the transaction and I am inclined to allow the claim of the assessee and direct deletion of the addition of 11,78,596/-. Before I part I would like to deal with the case laws cited by the Ld. DR who had submitted 23 judicial pronouncements in his support. I note that the said judicial pronouncements are all distinguishable on facts as well as on law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and drew our attention to page 2 to 4 of the assessment order and urged before us that the claim of assessee was bogus and, therefore, it was rightly disallowed by the authorities below and we should not interfere with the same and cited case law, which we will discuss infra. 6. Having heard both the parties and after carefully perusing the record, it is noted that the assessee had purchased 5000 numbers of shares of M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. (M/s. KPL) on 10.07.2012 at a total cost of ₹ 75,000/- from M/s. Sannidhya Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. [Copy of purchase bill is found placed in the paper book at page no.8.] We note that the payment was made through an account payee cheque and copy of the bank statement evidencing the payment made to M/s. Sannidhya Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. for such share purchase found placed is in the paper book at page no.10. Thereafter in this assessment year, the assessee sold the shares at a consideration of ₹ 12,53,750/- through M/s. Spartek Financiers & Investment Pvt. Ltd. which is a registered broker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and has also been registered by SEBI as is evident from the contract note and claimed long term capital gains of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a character, which would either directly prove the fact of bogus/fictitious or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference to that effect. Further, the A.O. in the assessment order relied upon the purported statements of various alleged operators on the basis of which the A.O. had drawn adverse inference in the instant case. It is noted that nowhere any of them has ever named the assessee/broker in the alleged manipulation. Further, the A.O. did not provide any opportunity to cross examine the said persons. It is a well-settled principle of law that no credence can be given to the statement/report of any person given behind the back of the assessee unless a copy of the same is furnished to the assessee and an opportunity to cross examine the third person is afforded to the assessee. In this regard, reliance placed upon the following judgments: (i) Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE - [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (ii) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income-tax and Sale Tax Officer and Others 209 ITR 821 (Ker.), (iii) CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises 210 ITR 103 (Cal), (iv) Asst. CIT vs. Ajnara India Ltd. (2011) 49 DTR 273 (Del-Trib), ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isted below:- Sl.No ITA Nos. Name of the Assessee Date of order/Judgment 1. ITA No.714 to 718/Kol/2011 ITAT, Kolkata DICT vs. Sunita Khemka 28.10.2015 2 214 ITR 244 Calcutta High Court CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. - 3. 250 ITR 539 CIT vs. Emerald Commercial Ltd. 23.03.2001 4. ITA No.1236-1237/KOl/2017 Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT 18.08.2017 5. ITA No.569/Kol/2017 Gautam Pincha 15.11.2017 6 ITA No.443/KOl/2017 Kiran Kothari HUF 15.11.2017 7 ITA No.2281/Kol/2017 Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO 20.07.2018 8 ITA No.456 of 2007 Bombay High Court CIT vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia 07.09.2011 9 ITA No.95 of 2017 (O&M) PCIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi 18.01.2018 10 ITA No.1089/Kol/2018 Sanjay Mehta 28.09.2018 6. Regarding the case laws relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative, I find that, in the case of M/s. Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF)(supra), the issue was decided against the assessee for the reason that, the assessee could not justify his claim as genuine by producing evidence and was only arguing for the matter to be set aside to the lower authorities on the ground of natural justice. As similar arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shable on facts as well as on law. The said decisions are dealt with herein below in seriatim as under: 1. Ratnakar M. Pujari vs. Assessee -ITA No.995/Mum/2012, Order dt. 3rd August, 2016 [AY 2006-07] -ITAT Mumbai In this case the ITAT, Mumbai Bench were considering a case where the purchases of shares were treated as bogus and sham transactions by the Revenue in the immediately preceding financial year 2005-06 and the said findings of the AO with respect to bogus and sham purchases were not challenged by the Assessee. In such facts of the case the Tribunal had treated the exempt long term capital gains arising on sales of shares as bogus and sham. However, there is no such finding of fact in the instant case and thus the facts in the instant case are distinguishable. It was brought to my notice that the aforesaid order of ITAT, Mumbai, inter-alia, had been distinguished by Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following cases: a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Ko/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] b. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 2. Ritu Sanjay Mantry vs. ITO - ITA No.2003/Mum/2017, Order dt. 9th February, 2018 - ITAT Mumbai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Estate & Trading Co. Limited [2013] 40 taxmann.com 439 (Cal) iii) CIT V. Shreyashi Ganguli [ITA No. 196 of 2012] iv) CIT V. Rungta Properties Private Limited [ITA No. 105 of 2016] v) CIT V. Andaman Timbers Industries Limited [ITA No. 721 of 2008] vi) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738-ITA No. 22 of 2009, Order dt. 29.4.09] 3) Coming to the case of ITO vs. Shamim M. Bharwani (2016) 69 taxmann.com (Mum ITAT), Order dt. 27.03.2015 of Mumbai Triabunal, the brief facts in this case was that the assessee purchased 2500 shares of Emrald Commercial Ltd. (ECl). The purchase was in cash. According to the AO since the purchase was made in cash, the same was not verifiable. Further, the A.O. found that said transaction was not through the stock exchange. The shares were in a nondescript company, with no financial and/or physical assets of value or reported earnings. The shares, purchased at an average rate of ₹ 21.70 per share in May 2004, went up to as much as from ₹ 465 to ₹ 489 in July, 2005, i.e., just over years' time. Each of these incidents matched with that which could be expected in a case of a transaction in a penny stock, the modus opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnai Tribunal had relied upon and followed the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT, order dated 10.04.2017, which judgment has been considered and distinguished by Kolkata and other Benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/Kol/2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) Reference is also made to the recent judgment dated 1st July, 2019 rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Aparna Misra vs. ITO [ITA No.161/KoIl2019] wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court judgments, as mentioned hereinabove. 5. M. K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 339 - The Bangalore Tribunal noted the acts in this case as the assessee earned long-term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL and claimed exemption on it under section 10(38). The Assessing Officer relying upon the report of the investigation wing, SEBI report and findings/observations of the SIT, concluded that exemption under section 10(38) claimed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uine transaction, a part where of relevant to the present issue, mentioned in para Nos. 27 and 28 of the order, reads as under ...." However, in the case of the Assessee Company all relevant documents were furnished to support, and prove beyond all doubts, purchases and as well as sale of shares. Further this judgment has been considered and distinguished by this Tribunal and other Benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases while allowing similar issue in favour of the Assessee: a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kamal Singh Kundalia vs. ITO [ITA No.2359/Kol/2017, Order dt. 08.05.2019 (Kol ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 8. Coming to the case of Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (P&H) - The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer on the basis of finding of fact by the Tribunal that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. The relevant observation is as under: " ..... On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dra Kumar Bhandari vs. ITO [Order dt. 06.04.2018] Aravind Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 08.11.2018] Vikram Dughar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 13.11.2018] Sadhana, Bangalore vs. ITO [Order dt. 26.05.2017] Arun Kumar Bhaiya, New Delhi vs. ITO [Order dt. 30.08.2018] Natti Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. ACIT [Order dt. 31.10.2018] Vinod J. Sharma, Thane [Order dt. 28.10.2015] All the matters were set aside to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and/or to confront the Assessee with the adverse materials used against him. The matters in each of the said cases were set aside in the specific facts and circumstances of each of the cases were set aside in the specific facts and circumstances of each of the cases wherein all facts were not available on record and/or where in the words of the D/R the "AO has botched up enquiry". However, in the case in hand there is no occasion for setting aside the matter in as much as the assessee had furnished all relevant documents, materials and/or evidence to support its transactions of purchase and as well as sale of shares and the AO had failed to point out any defect and/or lacuna in the said documents, materials and/or evidence. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal and other benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/Kol/2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 12. Coming to the cases given below: ACIT vs. Madhuri Sunil Kotecha [ITAT, Pune, Order dt. 28.03.2018] Charu Agarwal, Meerut vs. ITO [ITAT, Delhi, Order dt. 10.09.2018] Dayaram Khandelwal vs. PCIT [MP High Court, Order dt. 01.03.2018] Sourabh Khandelwal vs. PCIT [MP High Court, Order dt. 01.03.2018] It is noted that in all of these cases relates to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts where the Assessee had withdrawn/surrendered his/her claim of exempt L TCG u/s. 10(38) of the Act and paid taxes on the gains arising from sale of shares. All these judgments are irrelevant and has no application to the facts of the instant case before the Tribunal. 13. Coming to the case of SEBI v. Rakhi Trading P. Ltd [Civil Appeal No.1969 of 2011, Judgment dated 8th February, 2018 (of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ) It is noted that the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
