9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonafide of the transaction, because as per norms of the Stock Exchange the stockbroker it is required to deliver the security and make payment within 48 hours of settlement of trade by the stock exchange. It was informed by RoC, Mumbai vide letter dated 13/1/2015 that no such transaction had taken place. The purchaser of share from the assessee did not have good credentials and appears to be bogus. The assessee has not furnished any convincing evidence to dispute these findings of the Ld. Revenue Authorities - AR also could not present any cogent materials before us other than the manipulated documents to establish the transaction to be genuine or to counter the theory of preponderances of human probability as enlightened by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the learned AO (supra). Further it is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that the assessee is in the habit of introducing unexplained funds. In this situation, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of learned Revenue authorities on this issue Unexplained loan - HELD THAT:- As the facts of the case, it also appears that all the loan creditors were persons of meagre inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income on 23.11.2012 declaring total income of ₹ 44,83,200/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2015 wherein the learned AO made the above-mentioned additions. 4. Ground No.1 - Unexplained money of ₹ 31,29,215/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the learned AO that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of ₹ 31,29,215/- towards sale of jewellery and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act against investment made in construction of house. Assessee was asked to show proof for the purchase of jewellery, whereas she had replied that the said jewellery was received from her mother on her 10th wedding anniversary in 1998. She also furnished invoices from M/s. Manoj Jewellery, Secunderabad for purchase of jewellery. Consequently, summon was issued to M/s. Manoj Jewellers and the partner of the firm appeared. However, he could not confirm the sale transaction and also denied knowledge about the signatures in the invoices. Further the assessee had not filed her wealth tax return to substantiate possession of gold jewellery. It was further observed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary to interfere with the order of Revenue authorities on this issue. Hence, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is devoid of merits. 7. Ground No.2 - Addition of ₹ 1,86,32,023/- by disallowance u/s 10(38) of the Act. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee had sold 57,200 equity shares of Oasis Cine Communications Ltd., aggregating to ₹ 1,86,32,023/- on 12.03.2012 & 13.03.2012. On query, it was submitted that the assessee had acquired the shares by virtue of the amalgamation scheme of M/s. Gravity Barter Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Oasis Cine Communication Ltd sanctioned by the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 25.08.2011. It was further submitted that the assessee had acquired 1300 equity shares of M/s. Gravity Barter Pvt. Ltd originally on 03.12.2010, face value of those shares was ₹ 10 per share. The assessee had purchased those shares at a premium of ₹ 490/- per share and the aggregate purchase consideration of 1300 equity shares was ₹ 6.55 lakh. Subsequently the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards the long term capital gains of ₹ 1,79,82,023/- (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted from DMAT A/c of the assessee prior to the date of sale. (v) The transaction was with a completely unknown company having no business activity, and whose shares were purchased at a premium of ₹ 490 per share (face value was ₹ 10/-). (vi) The shares were sold to companies which were paper entries with little 0'- no business activity used for providing accommodation entries having same or similar kind of dummy Directors and controlled by Sri Anil Kumar Khemka. 13.1 This casts a big shadow of doubt on genuineness of transaction. The Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with all the evidence. The assessee admitted that she could not prove the genuineness of the transaction and offered to pay tax on the alleged capital gain. There is nothing on record to show that she did so under duress. She has discussed the matter with her husband, who also confirmed the same. Thus, the admission of failure to substantiate the genuineness of transaction and offer of payment of tax was a considered decision. It was only after good 5 days of the original statement that she came up with the plea she-was unable to honour the commitment of paying the lax. Thus, she did not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not furnished any convincing evidence to dispute these findings of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Further, the learned AR also could not present any cogent materials before us other than the manipulated documents to establish the transaction to be genuine or to counter the theory of preponderances of human probability as enlightened by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the learned AO (supra). Further it is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that the assessee is in the habit of introducing unexplained funds. In this situation, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of learned Revenue authorities on this issue. 12. Ground No.3 - Unexplained loan of ₹ 61 lakh. It was observed that the assessee has received loan of ₹ 1,37,45,000/- during the relevant assessment year and on further verification, it appeared that the loan received from the following 11 loan creditors were not genuine aggregating to ₹ 61,00,000/- viz. Kiran Kedia, Vandana Agarwal, K. Bhagyamma, K. Brijesh Chowdary, K. Suresh Chandra, Kanak Baid, Lata Baid, Anil Kedia, N. Siddarth, S. Swarajya and Priyanka Narsingam. Since the assessee could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entities who have extended loan to the assessee. The finding of the learned Revenue authorities also could not be controverted by the learned AR with any cogent evidence. From the facts of the case, it also appears that all the loan creditors were persons of meagre income. It is also apparent that the loan creditors had deposited cash in their accounts and mostly on the very same day they had transferred the same to the assessee's bank account. Thereafter, there were no significant bank transactions in the bank accounts of the loan creditors. Needless to mention that banking transaction alone will not make the transactions to be genuine. From the above it is crystal clear that the creditworthiness of the loan creditors is not established. Further, the proximity between the loan creditors and the assessee is also not established for extending loan to the assessee. On perusing the orders cited by the Ld. AR in page no. 1 to 98 of the paper book, we do not find the facts to be identical to the facts in the case of the assessee and on the other hand the decision cited by the Ld. Revenue Authorities support the case of the Revenue. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
