JAYESH TARACHAND KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 19(2), MUMBAI

The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a regular investor and has purchased shares in online in Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and has sold the same in BSE. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is a regular investor and during the year under consideration has sold many shares which resulted in both STCG and LTCG. In this regard the ld. AR drew our attention to the list of shares sold during the year under consideration (page 10 to 12 of PB). The ld. AR further submitted that out of the entire list of various transactions of sale of shares, the AO has picked up only the transaction in M/s Shreenath and held the same to be bogus. The ld. AR further drew our attention to the list of documents furnished before the AO to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction (page 1 to 9 & 13 to 99 of PB). The ld. AR further submitted that the AO did not find any adverse comment with regard to the various documents filed by the assessee but has proceeded to make the addition merely based on the fact that the Investigation Wing of Kolkata has held the stock to be a penny stock. The ld. AR also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench in various cases as listed below has considered the LTCG on the sale of M/s Shreenath and has deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act.

We also notice from the perusal of the balance-sheet of the assessee that the assessee is holding shares to the tune of Rs. 5,03,14,365/- as at 31.03.2013 which substantiates the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee is a regular investor. From the perusal of the AO's order we notice that the AO has extracted the findings of the DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, the movement of price of the impugned scrip and the analysis of the alleged cash credit. However, the AO has not accorded any finding where the assessee is linked to the alleged bogus transactions involving price rigging or the cash trade. It is also relevant to note that the AO has not recorded any adverse finding with regard to the various documents submitted by the assessee and has simply stated that the assessee failed to discharge the onus. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi vs. ITO (ITA No. 2251/Mum/2022 dated 19.04.2023 has considered the issue of a LTCG arising out of transfer of M/s Shreenath being treated as unexplained under section 68 of the Act and held that “13. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has furnished all the details in support of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd and the said fact has been recorded by the AO in paragraph 2.5 of the assessment order. We noticed that the assessee has purchased the shares through preferential allotment and the said shares had lock in period of one year. The assessee has held 15,00,000 shares in the above said company and the assessee has sold 11,20,000 shares during the year under consideration almost after one year after expiry of lock in period. We notice that the assessing officer has not found fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee in support of purchase and sale of shares. There is also no allegation made that the assessee was part of ring which indulged in the alleged price rigging. The allegation of the AO is that the assessee has availed accommodation entries by way of long term capital gains. We notice that an identical case of allegations that the assessee has availed accommodation entries for bogus capital gains was examined by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi 7 in the case of Shyam Power (supra). The decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above said case is extracted below:- “3. Mr.Sureshkumar seriously complained that such finding rendered concurrently should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. In further Appeal, the Tribunal proceeded not by analyzing this material and concluding that findings of fact concurrently rendered by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner are perverse. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that onus was on the Department to nail the Assessee through a proper evidence and that there was some cash transaction through these suspected brokers, on whom there was an investigation conducted by the Department. Once the onus on the Department was discharged, according to Mr.Sureshkumr, by the Revenue-Department, then, such a finding by the Tribunal raises a substantial question of law. The Appeal, therefore, be admitted.

The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has considered an identical issue in yet another case of PCIT vs. Ziauddin A Siddique (Income tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2017 dated 4th March, 2022) and relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court are extracted below:- “2. We have considered the impugned order with the assistance of learned counsels and we have no reason to interfere. There is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares of the alleged penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against the assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed reliance on a judgement of the Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (2019)(103 taxmann.com 48)(SC) but that does not help the revenue in as much as the facts in that case were entirely different. 5. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law.

We notice that the identical allegation of non-genuine long term capital gains generated on sale of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Mr Ripu Sudan Kundra vs. Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi ITO (ITA No.2792/Mum/2018 dated 05-10- 2021), wherein it was held as under:- “We have given our anxious thought and consideration to the matter in hand. The AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee based on analysis of the information received from Directorate of Investigation as a result of enquires undertaken by the officers of the Directorate. Based on the said information received, the AO has observed a pattern in the trading in scripts of those companies that 1552 & 1553/Mum/2024 Jayesh Tarachand Kothari has resulted in the claim of short-term capital loss to the assessee. Such companies were seen to have little financial credentials, no profitability, and no apparent explanation for abrupt rise in prices followed by a steep fall in price of shares. Besides, there are statements of brokers/ entry providers who have accepted that they were involved in the scam of price rigging to facilitate accommodation entries to beneficiaries who have routed their unaccounted cash into the books through circuitous means. However, at the same time the assessee has produced documents to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions carried out through banking channels, through the medium of portfolio management whereby there is no contact between the buyer and the seller. The fact remains that there is direct evidence placed on record by the assessee to support the genuineness of the impugned transactions such as contract notes, share certificates, corroborative evidence indicating purchase/ sale through registered broker as juxtaposed against the findings of the AO based on the general report from Investigation and the modus operandi adopted by unscrupulous entry providers. There is no denying that there is no assessee-specific material on record of the AO to pin-point that the assessee has entered into an unholy nexus with entry providers so as to stage manage accommodation entry of STCL. The statements relied on by the AO in the nature of admissions are bereft of corroborative material to implicate the assessee herein in such scam. At the same time the material furnished by assessee to substantiate its claim remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. The purchases were neither off- market nor through preferential allotment. Besides, no copy of any report of information received was supplied to the assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material allegedly detrimental to the assessee arising or culled out of the Investigation report. Thus, the fact remains that the findings of the lower authorities are not based on evidence but on generalizations and probabilities. The AO could not place anything on record, maybe through a process of his own enquiry, to decisively prove that assessee has obtained bogus STCL through his connivance with entry operators / exit providers. No such enquiry or investigation is seen carried by the AO other than borrowing information to be used against the assessee from the general report of Investigation Directorate. The claim of the assessee appears to have been rejected more on the basis of presumption rather than evidence. The fact also remains that copies of statements used against the assessee were not provided to the assessee. It certainly has incapacitated the assessee from effectively rebutting the same 1552 & 1553/Mum/2024 Jayesh Tarachand Kothari and also from seeking an opportunity for cross examination. When copies of statements relied upon were not provided, when there was no opportunity Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi 11 to cross examine those witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the AO to conclude that the transaction in question was part of penny scam, we have no hesitation in holding that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 – Mum Trib) and Kamla Devi S. Doshi vrs. ITO reported in 88 taxmann.com 773 (Mum-Trib) decided the issue in favour of the assessee on merits. From the above decision, it is trite that denial of such crucial rights is a fatal flaw that renders the assessment order a nullity. An assessment purely based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without any tangible evidence on record against the assessee of any connivance or collusion is unsustainable in law.”

In the instant case also, we noticed that the AO has simply relied upon the report of the investigation department and held that the long term capital gains declared by the assessee are not genuine. No other material was brought on record by the AO to prove that the assessee has indeed availed only accommodation entries. We noticed that the assessee has furnished all documents relating to purchase and sale of securities. The shares have entered and exited his demat account. The purchase and sale transactions have been routed through the bank accounts of the assessee. All these documentary evidences produced by the assessee have not been disproved. We also notice that the assessee has asked for opportunity of cross examination of the parties, whose statements were relied upon by the AO, but same was not provided. Hence the AO could not have placed reliance on those statements. On the conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above said case of Shyam R Pawar (supra) and Ziauddin A Siddique (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we set the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on the grounds raised

We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee with regard to the impugned transactions has produced the various 1552 & 1553/Mum/2024 Jayesh Tarachand Kothari documents such as the broker note, bank statement, Demat A/c statement, balance- sheet, P&L A/c, etc. before the AO for both the AYs. We further notice that the assessee has made STCG and LTCG on sale of various scrips the details of which were also furnished before the AO (page no.11 & 12 for AY 2014-15 and 29 to 36 for AY 2015-16. We also notice that the AO in the order of assessment has elaborated finding of investigation wing with regard to the scrip but without recording anything as to how the assessee is connected to the entire sham transactions. On perusal of the AO's order we notice that the statement from one of the entry operators has been extracted and that the name of the assessee is not mentioned in the statement recorded. We further notice that the AO in the entire order of assessment has explained only the modus operandi of the alleged bogus transactions and even in the findings and conclusion has not recorded anything linking the assessee to be alleged bogus transactions. It is also relevant to mention that the AO has not recorded any adverse findings with regard to the various documentary evidences submitted by the assessee with regard to the impugned transaction for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. We have while considering the similar issue for AY 2013-14 where the AO has made the addition under similar findings that the addition under section 68 is not sustainable. We also notice that the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Nimesh Chandrakant Mehta HUF vs. ITO where addition under section 68 is made by the AO towards LTCG arising on transfer of M/s Parag (earlier known as M/s PSIP Infrastructure and Services Ltd.) and held that “6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer has primarily placed reliance on the report given by the Investigation wing of the Income tax department, Kolkatta to arrive at the conclusion that the long term capital gains reported by the assessee is bogus in nature. We notice that the investigation report prepared by Investigation wing, Kolkata is a generalized report with regard to the modus operandi 1552 & 1553/Mum/2024 Jayesh Tarachand Kothari adopted in manipulation of prices of certain shares and generation of bogus capital gains. We notice that the AO has placed reliance on the said report without bringing any material on record to show that the transactions entered by the assessee were found to be a part of manipulated transactions, i.e., it was not proved that the assessee has carried out the transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of prices. It is stated by Ld A.R that the transactions carried on by the assessee were not subjected to scrutiny by SEBI at all. We notice from the statement recorded by the AO from the assessee u/s 131 of the Act that the assessee was able to answer all the technical details relating to stock market.

We may now refer to certain decisions rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on identical issue. In the case of Shyam Pawar (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed as under:- “3. Mr.Sureshkumar seriously complained that such finding rendered concurrently should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. In further Appeal, the Tribunal proceeded not by analyzing this material and concluding that findings of fact concurrently rendered by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner are perverse. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that onus was on the Department to nail the Assessee through a proper evidence and that there was some cash transaction through these suspected brokers, on whom there was an 1552 & 1553/Mum/2024 Jayesh Tarachand Kothari investigation conducted by the Department. Once the onus on the Department was discharged, according to Mr.Sureshkumr, by the Revenue-Department, then, such a finding by the Tribunal raises a substantial question of law. The Appeal, therefore, be admitted.

We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is placed by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively referred to the correspondence and the contents of the report of the Investigation carried out in paras 20, 20.1, 20.2 and 21 of his order, what was important and vital for the purpose of the present case was whether the transactions in shares were genuine or sham and bogus. If the purchase and sale of shares are reflected in the Assessee's DMAT account, yet they are termed as arranged transactions and projected to be real, then, such conclusion which has been reached by the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer required a deeper scrutiny. It was also revealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that the Calcutta Stock Exchange records showed that the shares were purchased for code numbers S003 and R121 of Sagar Trade Pvt Ltd. and Rockey Marketing Pvt. Ltd. respectively. Out of these two, only Rockey Marketing Pvt.Ltd. is listed in the appraisal report and it is stated to be involved in the modus-operandi. It is on this material that he holds that the transactions in sale and purchase of shares are doubtful and not genuine. In relation to Assessee's role in all this, all that the Commissioner observed is that the Assessee transacted through brokers at Calcutta, which itself raises doubt about the genuineness of the transactions and the financial result and performance of the Company 1552 & 1553/Mum/2024 Jayesh Tarachand Kothari was not such as would justify the increase in the share prices. Therefore, he reached the conclusion that certain operators and brokers devised the scheme to convert the unaccounted money of the Assessee to the accounted income and the present Assessee utilized the scheme.

It is in that regard that we find that Mr.Gopal's contentions are well founded. The Tribunal concluded that there was something more which was required, which would connect the present Assessee to the transactions and which are attributed to the Promoters/Directors of the two companies. The Tribunal referred to the entire material and found that the investigation stopped at a particular point and was not carried forward by the Revenue. There are 1,30,000 shares of Bolton Properties Ltd. purchased by the Assessee during the month of January 2003 and he continued to hold them till 31 March 2003. The present case related to 20,000 shares of Mantra Online Ltd for the total consideration of Rs.25,93,150/-. These shares were sold and how they were sold, on what dates and for what consideration and the sums received by cheques have been referred extensively by the Tribunal in para 10. A copy of the DMAT account, placed at pages 36 & 37 of the Appeal Paper Book before the Tribunal showed the credit of share transaction. The contract notes in Form-A with two brokers were available and which gave details of the transactions. The contract note is a system generated and prescribed by the Stock Exchange. From this material, in para 11 the Tribunal concluded that this was not mere accommodation of cash and enabling it to be converted into accounted or regular payment. The discrepancy pointed out by the Calcutta Stock Exchange regarding client Code has been referred to. But the Tribunal concluded that itself, is not enough to prove that the transactions in the impugned shares were bogus/sham. The details received from Stock Exchange have been relied upon and for the purposes of faulting the Revenue in failing to discharge the basic onus. If the Tribunal proceeds on this line and concluded that inquiry was not carried forward and with a view to discharge the initial or basic onus, then such conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse. The conclusions as recorded in para 12 of the Tribunal's order are not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record either.

We may now refer to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ziauddin A Siddique (Income tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2017 dated 4th March, 2022) and relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court are extracted below:- “2. We have considered the impugned order with the assistance of learned counsels and we have no reason to interfere. There is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares of the alleged penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against the assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL.

Mr. Walve placed reliance on a judgement of the Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (2019)(103 taxmann.com 48)(SC) but that does not help the revenue in as much as the facts in that case were entirely different.

We noticed earlier that the AO has assessed the Sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the purchase of shares made in an earlier year has been accepted by the revenue. The sale of shares has taken place in the online platform of the Stock exchange and the sale consideration has been received through the stock broker in banking channels. Hence, in the facts of the case, the sale consideration cannot be considered to be unexplained cash credit in terms of sec. 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of sale consideration of shares made u/s 68 of the Act and allow the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act.”

In result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 are allowed.