9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares. HELD THAT:- the AO was influenced by an interim order of SEBI dated 29.03.2016, which the SEBI has withdrawn by later order dated 21.09.2017 by virtue of it all the restrictions imposed upon by the earlier order dated 29.03.2016 has been withdrawn, since SEBI could not find any infirmity in the scrips of M/s. KAFL. Action of the Ld. CIT(A)/AO cannot be accepted, since the scrip of M/s. KAFL cannot be held to be bogus; and based on the finding of fact supra which are supported by documents which have not been adversely commented upon by AO/Ld. CIT(A) we are inclined to allow all the appeals of the assessee and direct the AO to allow the claim of LTCG on sale of scrips of M/s. KAFL in respect of all the assessees. See MANISH KUMAR BAID AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID VERSUS ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA [ 2017 (10) TMI 522 - ITAT KOLKATA] - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee's return of income does not show substantial trading activity or investment in shares of listed companies. As such according to him assessee's move to acquire the shares of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd was a predetermined move with the sole aim to bring back his own unaccounted money. Therefore, the AO concluded that purchase of shares on 16.08.2012 when company was new and one year old only and did not had any substantial profit; and despite being new in share market and having no substantial share transactions in the earlier years and subsequent years; and when financial results of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd. were not splendid and no chance of lucrative gains at the stage of purchase of its shares, therefore was a predetermined action on assessee's part leading to subsequent path to acquire LTCG by way of dubious methods. This predetermined action, according to AO, is one of the circumstantial evidence leading to the conclusion that LTCG earned was not a genuine transaction. Thus, according to AO, the genuinity of purchase of share was not proved. Thereafter, the AO relying on the report of the Investigation Wing, Kol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, directors and any other person who exercised any control over Kailash Auto Finance Ltd which was the amalgamated company or any so called entry operators. As a matter of fact it was contented by the ld AR that neither the assessee indulged in any activity as alleged by AO nor has been part of any modus operandi as stated by the A.O. According to ld AR, the assessee has transacted in the shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd/amalgamated company in the normal course of investment like millions of investors do in the stock market. Therefore, the question of alleged conversion of unaccounted money in the form of alleged bogus long term capital gains with the help of many alleged connected parties/intermediaries through price rigging and price manipulations does not arise. According to him, there is no material evidence for the A.O. to conclude what is apparent is not real. In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the Departments conjectures. Blaming the assessee by vague observations and drawing an adverse inference without any admissible evidence on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y allowed to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. It was pointed out by the ld AR that the A.O. has also nowhere in the assessment order referred to any material which can prove the complicity of assessee in the alleged accommodation entry operation. According to Ld. AR, the AO/CIT(A) was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act in regard to the sale proceeds of shares. According to ld AR, when the assessee had produced all evidences to explain the source of the amounts received by the assessee from the brokers and there is no evidence on record to disbelieve that the assessee sold shares through registered share and stock broker, the AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income. Therefore, he prayed before us that the appeal of the assessee may please be allowed. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and cited 23 case-laws in support of Revenue which I will be dealing separately (infra) and vehemently opposed the contentions of the assessee and took us through the AO's order and Ld. CIT(A) order and submitted that scrips of M/s. KAFL was artificially rigged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umber of shares of two penny stock companies at a nominal rate in large quantity which assessee claimed as an investment. Considering the circumstances of that case the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and held that the transaction with a penny stock of an insignificant company, its subsequent the merger with a new company, and ultimate sale of the shares of the new company at such an higher profit within a short period of time falls in the ambit of an adventure in the nature of trade, and so, AO brought the aforesaid amount to tax under the head 'business income'. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, it was submitted that assessee's dealing with this stock may be considered as "an adventure in the nature of trade" and so, profit derives from such activity may kindly be considered as income from business or other sources." And thus urged before the bench to confirm the orders of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing it was brought to my noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the arguments of the ld AR supra, with regard to impleading the assessee for drawing adverse inferences which remain unproved based on the evidences available on record, are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The principles laid down in various case laws relied upon by the ld AR are also not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the amalgamation of CPAL with KAFL has been approved by the order of Hon'ble High Court. The ld AO ought not to have questioned the validity of the amalgamation scheme approved by the Hon'ble High Court in May 2013 merely based on a statement given by a third party which has not been subject to cross -examination. Moroever, it is also pertinent to note that the assessee and / or the stock broker Ashita Stock Broking Ltd name is neither mentioned in the said statement as a person who had allegedly dealt with suspicious transactions nor they had been the beneficiaries of the transactions of shares of KAFL. Hence we hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unwarranted allegations leveled by the ld AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion, has no legs to stand in the ey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in support of the assessee's case clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were bonafide and genuine and therefore the ld AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. We also find that the various case laws of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the ld AR and findings given thereon would apply to the facts of the instant case. The ld DR was not able to furnish any contrary cases to this effect. Hence we hold that the ld AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares of KAFL as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We accordingly hold that the reframed question no. 1 raised hereinabove is decided in the negative and in favour of the assessee." 8. Coming back to the instant case, it is noted that the assessee had purchased 1,10,000 equity shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. on 16.08.2012 from M/s. Shivsakti Exports Pvt. Ltd. Later M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd. was merged with M/s. KAFL and there was change of management and control of M/s. KAFL Ltd. pursuant to scheme to arrangement sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad. It is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee's contention various documents had been filed during the course of assessment proceedings i.e. copies of purchase bills, which is available in paper book page 9, copy of Bank statements showing payments made for purchase of shares, which is available in paper book pages 11, demat account with M/s. Kotak Securities Pvt. Ltd. page 18-23, copies of contract notes in respect of sale of shares, which is available at pages 13-15 of paper book, copy of bank statements showing receipts against sale of shares, which is available at page 16-17 of the paper Book. 9. I note that shares of M/s. KAFL were sold by assessee through recognized broker in a recognized Stock Exchange. The details of such sale and contract note have been submitted before AO/Ld. CIT(A). I take note that when the transactions happened in the Stock exchange, the seller who sells his shares on the stock exchange does not know who purchases shares. It is noted that the shares are sold and bought in an electronic mode on the computers on-line by the brokers and there is also no direct contact at any level even between the brokers. It is noted that as and when any shares are offered for sale in the stock exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he premium money for spending it on advertisement and other expenses and it was their liability as per their mutual understanding with the aseessee. Another very strong probable factor is that the entire scheme of 'twin branding' and collection of premium was so designed that assessee company need not incur advertisement expenses and the responsibility for sales promotion and advertisement lies wholly upon wholesale buyers who will borne out these expenses from alleged collection of premium. The probable factors could have gone against the assessee only if there would have been some evidence found from several searches either conducted by DRI or by the department that Assessee- Company was beneficiary of any such accounts. At least something would have been unearthed from such global level investigation by two Central Government authorities. In case of certain donations given to a Church, originating through these benami bank accounts on the behest of one of the employees of the assessee company, does not implicate that GTC as a corporate entity was having the control of these bank accounts completely. Without going into the authenticity and veracity of the statements of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the main reasons for not accepting the genuineness of the transactions declared by the appellant that at the time of survey the appellant in his statement denied having made any transactions in shares. However, subsequently the facts came on record that the appellant had transacted not only in the shares which are disputed but shares of various other companies like Satyam Computers, HCL, IPCL, BPCL and Tata Tea etc. Regarding the transactions in question various details like copy of contract note regarding purchase and sale of shares of Limtex and Konark Commerce & Ind. Ltd., assessee's account with P.K. Agarwal & co. share broker, company's master details from registrar of companies, Kolkata were filed. Copy of depository a/c or demat account with Alankrit Assignment Ltd., a subsidiary of NSDL was also filed which shows that the transactions were made through demat a/c. When the relevant documents are available the fact of transactions entered into cannot be denied simply on the ground that in his statement the appellant denied having made any transactions in shares. The payments and receipts are made through a/c payee cheques and the transactions are routed through K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." 13. I note that the sale of shares of M/s. KAFL which was dematerlized in Demat account has taken place through recognised stock exchange and assessee received money through banking channel. So, assessee has explained the nature and source of the money with supporting documents and thus has discharged the onus casted upon him by producing the relevant documents mentioned in para 6 (supra), accordingly, the question of treating the said gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act cannot arise unless the AO is able to find fault/infirmity with the same. I note that the source of the receipt of the amount has been explained and the transaction in respect of which the said amount has been received by assessee has not been cancelled by the stock exchange/SEBI. So, it is difficult to countenance the action of AO/Ld. CIT(A) in the aforesaid facts and circumstances explained above. 14. Even assuming that the brokers may have done some manipulation then also the assessee cannot be held liable for the illegal action of the brokers when the entire transactions have been carried out through banking channels duly recorded in the Demat accounts with a Government depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oker P that the transactions with the H Group were bogus has been demonstrated to be wrong by producing documentary evidence to the effect that the shares sold by the assessees were in consonance with the market price. On perusal of those documentary evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that the transactions were genuine. Nothing is brought on record to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding of fact that the cash credits in the,bank accounts of some of the buyers of shares cannot be linked to the assessees. Moreover, yn the light of the documentary evidence adduced to show that the shares purchased and sold by the assessees were in conformity with the market price, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the cash credits in the buyers' bank accounts cannot be attributed to the assessees. No fault can be found with the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of facts. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal.-Asstt. CIT vs. Kamal Kumar S. Agrawal (Indl.) & Ors. (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no material before the AO, which could have lead to a conclusion that the transaction was simplicitier a device to camouflage activities, to defraud the Revenue. No such presumption could be drawn by the AO merely on surmises and conjectures. In the absence of any cogent material in this regard, having been placed on record, the AO could not have reopened the assessment. The assessee had made an investment in a company, evidence whereof was with the AO. --Therefore, the AO could not have added income, which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. It is settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for adjudication.- C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT (.1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker)) and Mukand Singh vs. Sales Tax Tribunal (1998) 107 STC 300 (Punjab) relied on; Umacharan Shaw &Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Applied; Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P & H) 624 distinguished" 19. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Smt. Sunita Jalan Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 dated 09.03.2017 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the crossexamination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for acceptin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of Delhi in the case of Meenu Goel Vs. ITO, (2018) 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del. Tri) had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the assessment was framed on the strength of the statement of a broker. The relevant part reads as under:- "4. The issue in short is this: The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-07 at ₹ 11/- and sold the same in the assessment year 2008-09 at ₹ 400/- per share. In the above case, namely, ITA 18-2017 also the assessee had purchased and sold the shares in the same assessment years. The AO in both the cases added the appreciation to the assessees' 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 held that the AO had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very high, the shares were traded on the National Stock Exchange and the payments and receipt were routed through the bank. There was no evidence to indicate for instance that this was a close ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 In this case is that was reopened by the AO on the basis of information received from office of DGIT (C&IB), New Delhi that the assessee had taken accommodation entry from M/s. Magasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. (a company in the Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. group share scam case) of ₹ 10,32,289/-. Subsequently the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act after making an addition of ₹ 10,39,289/- on account of bogus share transactions and ₹ 20,786/- being commission paid to the broker for arranging accommodation entries in the form of share transactions. The AO had given a finding that the assessee had taken entries from Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. involved in the shares scam case for ₹ 10,39,289/- for bogus speculation profit during the financial year 2007 - 08. It was further found by the AO that the assessee has paid cash of equivalent amount and received back by cheque and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 operandi of the transactions in which was also listed by the AO. Accordingly, relying on the decisions by the apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC); Durga Prasad More v. CIT [1971] 182 ITR 540 (SC) and MC. Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 (SC), besides by the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Som Nath Maini [2006] 7 SOT 202 (Chd.), he assessed the impugned credit of ₹ 12.15 lacs as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the addition observing that the purchase of shares was off market purchase not reported in the stock exchange. Further, it was observed by the Tribunal that the purchase was through a back date contract note in cash and, there was no trail. Thus it is noted that Tribunal in this case confirmed the addition on a factual finding that the purchase was through a back dated contract note in cash and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm 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 assessee was not acceptable and the act of the assessee in purchasing the penny stock shares and sale of fee within the ambit of adventure in the nature of trade. Consequently, amount in question was liable to be taxed under the head 'business income'. The Tribunal confirmed the addition by observing that the department had brought sufficient material on record to demonstrate that unaccounted money was introduced in the books of account through long-term capital gain by adopting such method. It is noted that in the aforesaid case, the Tribunal confirmed the addition on a factua1 finding that the department had brought sufficient material on record to demonstrate that unaccounted money was introduced in the books of account through long-term capital gain by adopting such method. This fact is not applicable in the present case. Further, the abovementioned judgment has been considered/distinguished by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer 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 failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. Once the transaction of purchase and sale was found to be bogus then the sale proceeds had to be added as income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act because the money received on the basis of bogus transaction had been credited by the assessee in the books of account which remained unexplained. 9. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below which could not be demonstrated to be erroneous or perverse in any manner, no interference is called for. " However, in the instant case of the Assessee company all relevant documents were furnished to support and prove beyond all doubts, purchases 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 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Further, this Tribunal in its orders had decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by relying on binding judicial pronouncements. Reference is also made to the recent judgment dated 1st July, 2019 rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Aparna Miwsra, supra wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the following jurisdictional Calcutta High Court judgments to decide similar issue in favour of the assessee. i) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] ii)CIT vs. Lakshmangarh 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] 11. Coming to the cases given below Prem Jain vs. ITO [I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hares. 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 Supreme Court was concerned with a case where SEBI had initiated actions against few traders and brokers for violation of Regulations 3(a), (b) and (c) and 4 (1), (2)(a) and (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ("the PFUTP Regulations"). In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the action initiated in the case of traders as the said traders have admitted of being involved in synchronized trade to manipulate the prices of shares. There is no such admission by the Assessee in the instant case that it has involved in any price manipulation and/or any dubious tax planning. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court had set aside the action initiated by SEBI in the case of brokers as there was no evidence on record to show involvement of the said brokers. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken note in para 8 supra and discussions, I am inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO not to treat the long term capital on sale of shares of M/s KAFL as bogus and delete the consequential addition. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed. 23. Now, I would like to do the same exercise to find out the facts in respect to each cases given in the cause title. First we take up the case of Pankaj Kumar Verma Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2163/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took me through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 14 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 55,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 18 to 22 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 27 to 28 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 15, 23 to 25 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 24. In respect of Smt. Manju Devi Mundhra Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2354/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate has taken me through the purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave passed through the banking channel. 28. In the case of Shri Rakesh Jhunjhunwala Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2403/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 9 & 10 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 1,00,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 13 to 18 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 22 to 24 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 11 to0 12 and 19 to 21 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 29. In the case of Shri Gulab Chand Dudhani Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2405/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 7 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 25,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 12 to 14 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 10,11 and 18 of the paper boo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In the case of Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1746/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 5 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 50,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 9 to 11 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 15 to 18 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 34. In the case of Shri Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1747/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 5 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 50,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 9 to 12 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 17 to 19 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 6, 7, 13, 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
