SMT.GEETA KHARE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KALYAN

4 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre 5. The ld AO made an addition of Rs 2,26,36,372/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect of long term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s. SRK Industries Ltd on the following grounds:- a) By placing reliance on the copies of statements of various persons recorded during the course of survey proceedings carried out by Kolkata Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department b) By holding that the entire transactions of purchase and sale of shares were pre- arranged by the assessee with a malign intention to launder her undisclosed income in the form of long term capital gains on sale of shares c) The assessee had not taken the advice of her regular share broker and had purchased the shares of Transcend Commerce Ltd off market through an unknown company i.e M/s Subhmangal Sales Private Limited. d) The assessee has not made any other investment in shares of reputed company while assessee made a windfall gain in this share which has very dubious financials. e) Assessee is not aware of the Directors of SRK Industries Ltd , its nature of business , turnover or profit . She was not even aware of Shri Rakeshchand Jain, Managing Director of both SRK Industries Ltd and Transcend Commerce Ltd. The assessee had stated on oath that she had purchased the shares of Transcend Commerce Ltd on advice of her friend Shri Shivajirao Jondhale, who has also purchased shares from the same broker and on the same date and through the same mechanism. f) The assessee had never reinvested in these shares again despite the fact that she made huge gains on sale of shares of SRK Industries Ltd in the past. g) On the basis of analysis of price movements of the scrip of SRK Industries Ltd.

6. The action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

7. We have heard the rival submissions. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on certain statements recorded by the Investigation wing of Kolkata Income Tax Department during some survey proceedings conducted in third party cases. We find that in none of those statements, the name of the assessee or the name of the brokers through whom assessee had transacted were mentioned. We also find that there is no mention of any connivance on the part of the assessee with the share broker and stock exchange to launder the unaccounted monies of the assessee and bring it back in the form of sale proceeds of shares and claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for the long term capital gains derived thereon. None of the parties on whom survey actions were conducted were related to assessee or the brokers in any manner whatsoever. We find that the various purchase and sale details together with the supporting evidences were not controverted by the revenue before us. The revenue had not brought on record any adverse order passed by SEBI linking the assessee or her broker with the alleged price rigging and manipulation. Hence there is absolutely no iota of evidence linking the assessee or the registered brokers to even remotely allege that they were involved in artificial rigging of price of scrips which were dealt by the assessee herein. The statements of various operators were recorded by the ld AO and the same are reproduced in the assessment order. But nowhere in those statements, the name of the assessee or the broker through whom the assessee dealt with regard to sale of shares were even remotely mentioned by those operators. We find from perusal of the assessment order, there is no mention or reference as to whether these statements were even provided to the assessee for his verification and seek for cross examination, if any. Hence it could be safely concluded that these statements were taken behind the back of the assessee and were never put to the assessee for his rebuttal. Hence no evidentiary value could

6 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre be attached to those statements. We find that the statement was recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Act from the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings by the ld AO, but no questions regarding the statements obtained from entry operators were even put to the assessee by the ld AO.

7.1. On analysis of price movements of shares of SRK Industries Ltd , we find that as per the data relied upon by the ld AO in his assessment order, the total number of shares traded in respect of this scrip in the entire market from Feb 2012 ( i.e the time of purchase of shares by the assessee herein) to Jan 2014 (i.e the time of sale of shares by the assessee herein) was 40254365 shares. Whereas the same transactions from Feb 2014 to Dec 2015 were 82818409 shares. This will be clear from the following table:-

Upto Jan Jan 14 to 2014 Dec-15 No. of No. of Shares Shares traded traded 100 4778156 500 20544716 200 1200905 100 2982153 300 558044 100 48031 35 25842 62156 188670 528 1755017 172 5965728 941 4542919 219901 800299 445841 2361304 134745 4568884 863657 2135413 2220786 3212730 2208340 4916774 4197610 3271357 6277016 5489375 7.1.1. From the above tabulation, it could be seen that the assessee had exited from the market by selling the shares once there was heavy selling of the shares of SRK Industries Ltd on the fear element being setting in for further reduction of prices. We find that these after Jan 2014, these shares were heavily traded in the open market. In any case, it is not for the revenue to decide as to at what time the assessee should exit from his holding of shares in the open market. It is for the assessee to decide. The revenue cannot step into the shoes of the assessee and decide the purchase and sale transactions of shares and the timing together with the pricing thereon. Reliance in this regard is placed has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji reported in 91 ITR 544 (SC).

7.2. We find that the ld AR pleaded that in an online platform, there would be no nexus between the purchasers and the seller and the delivery of shares and payments would be made through their respective stock brokers. Hence the ld AO ought to have summoned the assessee’s brokers to examine the authenticity of the sale of shares of SRK Industries Ltd and the amount received on sale of shares. We find that the ld AR also placed evidences on record to prove that the said company SRK Industries Ltd is still listed in the stock exchange and shares of this company are being traded and SEBI had not passed any adverse order against the said company either suspending the trading of the scrip or banning the scrip. Moreover, the ld AR also placed on record the letter dated 14.2.2019 addressed by SRK Industries Ltd to Bombay Stock Exchange informing the outcome of the Board Meeting held on 14.2.2019 approving the unaudited standalone financial

8 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre results of SRK Industries Ltd for the quarter ended 31st December 2018 in the format prescribed by SEBI listing norms and the stock exchange. From the said quarterly financials, we find that SRK Industries Ltd revenue from operations for the quarter ended Dec 2018 was Rs 30.61 crores which clearly shows that it is an operational company and not merely a company having no value as alleged by the revenue before us to make it fall under the category of ‘penny stock’. Moreover, the status of this company M/s SRK Industries Ltd in the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs as on 26.2.2019 is still shown under the category of ‘Active’. In the said status report of website of ministry of corporate affairs, we find that the fixed assets and current assets of SRK Industries Ltd were subjected to some charge or encumbrance with certain loan creditors and the said charge on assets were also duly cleared by SRK Industries Ltd subsequently. This is evident from the status report mentioned therein as ‘closed’. These facts go to prove beyond doubt that SRK Industries Ltd is an operational company even as on 26.2.2019.

7.3. We find that the ld AO sought to identify the alleged purchasers of shares from the assessee and issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all of them. All the notices sent through speed post returned unserved. Based on this, adverse inference was drawn by the ld AO on the assessee. We find that the ld AR had already submitted that in an online platform of trading of shares in the open market through a registered stock broker, it is not possible for the assessee to even know the name and address of the purchasers when the assessee sells the shares in the open market. In any case, merely because the alleged purchasers list given by the ld AO in his assessment order had not responded to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, no adverse inference could be drawn on the assessee for the default committed by those alleged purchasers. The ld AO could have very well resorted to issuance of summons u/s 131 of the Act to those alleged purchasers and / or take necessary action on them in the manner known to law for non-compliance

9 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre from their side. We hold that the assessee need not discharge her onus of bringing on record the alleged purchasers especially when the shares were sold in the open market in an online platform. Accordingly, the assessee need not prove the identity, creditworthiness of those alleged purchasers of shares and the genuineness of transactions within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. The assessee has received the sale proceeds of shares from her broker M/s Sharekhan Limited. The assessee had shown the credit in the name of M/s Sharekhan Limited in her books. Hence the assessee had duly discharged her onus by furnishing the entire sale details made through the registered stock broker M/s Sharekhan Limited. We find that the ld AO had not even bothered to make any enquiry with M/s Sharekhan Limited to understand these facts. Hence no fault could be attributed on the assessee in this regard. We find that none of the purchase and sale details with supporting evidences were found to be deficient in any manner whatsoever either by the ld AO or by the ld CITA.

7.4. We find that the assessee was duly examined on oath u/s 131 of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings on 29.11.2016 which fact is also mentioned in Page 26 of the Assessment Order. In the said statement, the assessee in reply to Question No. 9 had categorically stated that she had been making investments in capital market and equity shares through broker M/s Sharekhan Limited and through relatives and friends. The assessee had also categorically replied in response to Question No. 13 that the investment in shares of SRK Industries Ltd (Transcend Commerce Ltd prior to merger) was made based on the advice of her friend Shri Shivajirao Jondhale. The assessee in reply to Question No. 17 had also stated that she did not make any enquiry about the financial condition of the shares of SRK Industries Ltd but she was told by Shri Shivajirao Jondhale that the value of the shares would get appreciated. This was the sole basis of the assessee making the investment in shares of Transcend Commerce Ltd 10 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Later merged with SRK Industries Ltd) which cannot be doubted at all. In our considered opinion, it cannot be said that all the investment decisions of the assessee would be prudent and would be done only after analyzing the entire fundamentals and financials of the investee company. It is in everybody’s knowledge, that an investor would try to take calculated risks by investing his money on an unknown scrip based on certain information from friends, relatives, or in some stock market related websites and take a chance. Since the scrip purchased by the assessee was showing considerable growth from the time of purchase, the assessee being a gullible investor continued to hold it for a period of 14 months and later sold it in open market in online platform at prevailing market prices.

7.5. We find that the ld AO had observed that the assessee had traded only in the shares of SRK Industries Ltd. This is factually incorrect statement of the ld AO. Moreover, the ld AO had during the course of examination of the assessee on oath u/s 131 of the Act had even posed a question vide Question No. 24 that assessee had purchased very few shares of well reputed companies during the year like Indus Ind Bank, Crompton Greaves, Larsen and Toubro etc. We find that the ld AO in para 13.4 of his order had observed that on examination of Shri Shivajirao Jondhale on oath u/s 131 of the Act, it was noticed that he had also invested in the shares of SRK Industries Ltd only based on an advice of his friend. Based on this, the ld AO had concluded that the whole basis of purchase of this share is a pre- knowledge of rigging of price and subsequently taking accommodation entry for Long term capital gains. We find from the demat statements for the period 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 and 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014, the assessee had dealt in various reputed scrips and had duly dematted the same and all these transactions are duly reflected in the demat statements issued by the depository participant.

11 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre 7.6. We find that the ld DR made general submissions with regard to the investigations carried out by Kolkata Income Tax Department after identifying 84 scrips to be penny stocks and the modus operandi adopted by those scrips with the connivance of various entry operators, brokers and stock exchange. We find that the ld DR was not specifically able to controvert the documentary evidences filed by the assessee for purchase and sale of shares and various other documents referred to in the Paper Book. The ld DR also filed written submissions wherein he had reiterated the findings of the ld AO.

7.7. We find that the co-ordinate bench of Kolkata Tribunal in 2018 in Shreyans Chopra vs ACIT dated 25.7.2018 on similar set of facts and circumstances had held as follows:-

“IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Shreyans Chopra …….......…..…….…………………….......….. Appellant 3A, Mangoe Lane Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AAAFZ 1337 P] Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata.......Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : June 28th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : July 25th, 2018 12 ITA Nos. 4267 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (hereinafter the „Ld. CIT(A)‟), dt. 15/02/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the „Act‟), relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

4. On appeal, the ld. First Appellate Authority, has classified these transactions as „suspicious‟ and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

6. I have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, I hold as follows:- 6.1. Recently, the Kolkata „C‟ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navneet Agarwal,-vsITO, Ward-35(3), Kolkata; I.T.A. No. 2281/Kol/2017; Assessment Year: 2014-15, while dealing with identical issue of sale of shares decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying upon a plethora of judgments of various Courts. It held as follows:- “12. The assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have rejected these evidences filed by the assessee by referring to “Modus Operandi” of persons for earning long term capital gains which his exempt from income 14 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre tax. All these observations are general in nature and are applied across the board to all the 60,000 or more assessees who fall in this category. Specific evidences produced by the assessee are not controverted by the revenue authorities. No evidence collected from third parties is confronted to the assesses. No opportunity of cross-examination of persons, on whose statements the revenue relies to make the addition, is provided to the assessee. The addition is made based on a report from the investigation wing.

17 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre The Income-tax Officer indicated the probable source or sources from which the appellant could have earned a large amount in the sum of Rs. 2,91,000 but the conclusion which he arrived at in regard to the appellant having earned this large amount during the year and which according to him represented the secreted profits of the appellant in its business was the result of pure conjectures and surmises on his part and had no foundation in fact and was not proved against the appellant on the record of the proceedings. If the conclusion of the Income-tax Officer was thus either perverse or vitiated by suspicions, conjectures or surmises, the finding 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 Rs. 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. 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.

19 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre 30. The aforesaid discussion makes it evident that, not only should the opportunity of cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective crossexamination, 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.

6. 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 20 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre 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 cross-examination 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 17-3-2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions.

7. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the show cause notice.”

22 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre “In the light of the documents stated i.e. (I to xiv) in Para 6(supra) we find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to have entered gamut of unfounded/unwarranted allegations leveled by the AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion has no legs to stand and therefore has to fall. We take note that the ld. DR could not controvert the facts supported with material evidences which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT (A). We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. These evidences were neither found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT (A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that income from LTCG is exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act.” Further in Page 15 Para 8.5 of the judgment, it held: “We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered by us 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 upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition.” e) The BENCH “D” OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of KIRAN KOTHARI HUF [ITA No. 443/Kol/2017] order dated 15.11.2017 held vide Para 9.3 held as under: “…….. We find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unfounded/unwarranted allegations leveled by the AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion has no legs to stand and therefore has to fall. We take note that the ld. DR could not controvert the facts which are supported with material evidences furnished by the assessee which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). We note that the allegations that the 23 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre assesse/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore consequently fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase 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 facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of 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 which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in 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 upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income of 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 under vide Page 24 Para 9.3: “We therefore 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 eyes of law. We find that the ld DR could not controvert the arguments of the ld AR with contrary material evidences on record and merely relied on the orders of the ld AO. We find that the allegation that the assessee and / or Brokers getting involved in price rigging of SOICL shares fails. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the ld AO to be false or fabricated. The facts of the case and the evidences in support of the assessee‟s case clearly support the claim of the assessee that 24 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre 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.” g) The BENCH “H” OF MUMBAI ITAT in the case of ARVIND KUMAR JAIN HUF [ITA No.4682/Mum/2014] order dated 18.09.2017 held as under vide Page 6 Para 8: “……We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been recorded by CIT (A) to the effect that assessee has made investment in shares which was purchased on the floor of stock exchange and not from M/s Basant Periwal and Co. Against purchases payment has been made by account payee cheque, delivery of shares were taken, contract of sale was also complete as per the Contract Act, therefore, the assessee is not concerned with any way of the broker. Nowhere the AO has alleged that the transaction by the assessee with these particular broker or share was bogus, merely because the investigation was done by SEBI against broker or his activity, assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction, insofar as assessee is not concerned with the activity of the broker and have no control over the same. We found that M/s Basant Periwal and Co. never stated any of the authority that transactions in M/s Ramkrishna Fincap Pvt. Ltd. On the floor of the stock exchange are ingenuine or mere accommodation entries. The CIT (A) after relying on the various decision of the coordinate bench, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, issue was decided in favour of the assessee, came to the conclusion that transaction entered by the assessee was genuine. Detailed finding recorded by CIT (A) at para 3 to 5 has not been controverted by the department by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT (A).” h) The Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of VIVEK MEHTA [ITA No. 894 OF 2010] order dated 14.11.2011 vide Page 2 Para 3 held as under: “On the basis of the documents produced by the assessee in appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) recorded a finding of fact that there was a genuine transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee on 16.3.2001 and sale thereof on 21.3.2002. The transactions of sale and purchase were as per the valuation prevalent in the Stocks Exchange. Such finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Tribunal has affirmed such finding. Such finding of fact is sought to be disputed in the present appeal. We do not find that the finding 25 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre 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 contract notes, details of his Demat account and, also, produced documents showing that all payments were received by the assessee through bank.” j) The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Teju Rohitkumar Kapadia order dated 04.05.2018 upheld the following proposition of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Gujrat High Court as under: “It can thus be seen that the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal came to concurrent conclusion that the purchases already made by the assessee from Raj Impex were duly supported by bills and payments were made by Account Payee cheque. Raj Impacts also confirmed the transactions. There was no evidence to show that the amount was recycled back to the assessee. Particularly, when it was found that the assessee the trader had also shown sales out of purchases made from Raj Impex which were also accepted by the Revenue, no question of law arises.”

26 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre  Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017  ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017  Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt. 18/08/2017  Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017 The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court had in the following cases, upheld the claim of the assessee:-  CIT vs. Shreyashi Ganguli (ITA No. 196 of 2012) (Cal HC) 2012 (9) TMI 1113  CIT vs. Rungta Properties Private Limited (ITA No. 105 of 2016) (Cal HC)dt. 08/05/2017  CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal (2009 TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22 of 2009 dated 29.04.2009 6.2. Consistent with the view taken therein, as the facts and circumstances of this case are same as the facts and circumstances of the cases of Navneet Agarwal (supra), we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, on account of sale of shares in the case of both the assessees. The consequential addition u/s 69C is also deleted. Accordingly both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

7.8. It would be pertinent to address the case law relied upon by the ld DR before us on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs Pr.CIT (Nagpur) reported in (2018) 89 taxmann.com 27 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre 196 (Bombay) dated 10.4.2017 on the impugned issue. From the facts of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain supra, we find that (i) in that case, the broker company through which the shares were sold did not respond to AO’s letter regarding the names and address and bank account of the person who purchased the shares sold by the assessee ; (ii) Moreover, at the time of acquisition of shares of both the companies by the assessee, the payments were made in cash ; (iii) The address of both the companies were interestingly the same ; (iv) The authorized signatory of both the companies were also the same person ; (v) The purchase of shares of both the companies was done by that assessee through broker, GSSL and the address of the said broker was incidentally the address of the two companies. Based on these crucial facts, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered the decision in favour of the revenue. None of these factors were present in the facts of the assessee before us. Hence it could be safely concluded that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court supra is factually distinguishable.

7.9. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mukesh Ratilal Marolia in of 2007 dated 7.9.2011 had held as under:- 5. On further appeal, the ITAT by the impugned order allowed the claim of the assessee by recording that the purchase of shares during the year 1999- 2000 and 2000-2001 were duly recorded in the books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recorded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect that the shares were in-fact transferred to the name of the Assessee. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the Assessee had purchased shares out of the funds duly disclosed by the Assessee cannot be faulted.

7. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the purchase and sale of shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs 1,41,08,484/- represented unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted.

7.10. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the ld CITA was not justified in upholding the action of the ld AO in bringing the long term capital gains on sale of shares of SRK Industries Ltd in the sum of Rs 2,26,36,372/- as unexplained income of the assessee treating the same as just an accommodation entry. The ld AO is directed to grant exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in the sum of Rs 2,26,36,372/- to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

8. Both the parties before us agreed that the facts in in the case of Shri Shashikant B Mhatre (HUF) are identical to that of Smt Geeta Khare supra except with variance in figures and name of the scrip that was dealt with. Both the parties before us stated that identical reasoning was given by both the lower authorities for denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act to the assessee. The decision rendered in the case of Smt Geeta Khare would apply with 29 ITA Nos. 4267 & 694/Mum/2018 Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre equal force for this assessee also and accordingly, the ground raised

by the assessee in ITA No. 694/Mum/2018 is allowed.

9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2019.