KRISHNA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai in dated 01.03.2018 for assessment year 2014-15.

Smt. Krishna Devi Agarwal, the assessee, an individual purchased 7500 shares of unlisted company, M/s. Transcend commerce Ltd., later amalgamated with M/s S R K Industries Ltd @ Rs.10 per share on 13.9.2012, off marketfrom Subhmangal Sales Pvt Ltd, Kolkata . Later , the face value of share was reduced from Rs.10 per share to Rs.5 per share on 15.10.2013, thereby the number of shares increased to 33,000. Subsequently, sold them on 16.12.13 through M/s MSE Financial Services Ltd., earned a profit of Rs. 63,85,291/-and claimed it as an exemption u/s. 10(38). The ld. Assessing Officer, on the basis of investigations done by the Revenue and after analyzing these transactions in detail denied the claim of exemption u/s. 10(38). Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter on appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

It was submitted by ld. A.R that the issue in this appeal was against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer in treating the purchase and sale of shares by the assessee in M/s. Transcend commerce Ltd., as penny stock transactions. It was the prayer that the claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act on the long term capital gains on sale of shares may be allowed.

Per contra, ld. D.R submitted that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ShriHeerachandKanunga for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 in & 2787/Mds/2017 vide order dated 03.05.2018 wherein the issue has been restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with certain directions. It was a submission that on identical directions, the issue in this appeal can also be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the assessee has not been given any opportunity to prove the genuineness but the assessment has been made based on the evidences collected by the Revenue in the course of the investigation conducted by them on brokers / share broking entities etc. This is not permissible. This being so,in the interest of natural justice, the issue of the genuineness ofthetransactions require re- adjudication. Since, the right to exemption must be established by those who seek it , the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the A O must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assesseefor his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. Further, perusal of assessee’s case shows that it is similar to the facts in the case of ShriHeerachandKanunga referred to supra. The relevant portions from that order is extracted as under :-

Admittedly, the assessee has claimed to have purchased 15000 shares from M/s.BPL @ Rs.20/- per share totaling into Rs.3,00,000/-. The assessee claims to have paid cash for the purchase of these shares. The primary question would be as to where the purchase was done? If the purchase has been done in Kolkata, how was the cash transferred? When did the assessee received the share certificates and the share transfer forms? How did the assessee overcome the provisions of Sec.40A(3)? Was there adequate cash availability in the books of the assessee on 24.04.2008? Did the assessee travelled to Kolkata? How was the transaction done? Who applied for the demating of the shares? When were they demated? When were the shares transferred to the demat account of the assessee? To whom were the shares sold during the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12? When were the cheques received by the assessee? From whom did the assessee received the cheques? Was there any cash deposit immediately prior to the issuing of the cheque from the bank account of the purchaser of the shares of the assessee? 11. A perusal of the Assessment Order at Para No.7.1 shows that in the Written Submissions, the assessee states that he has purchased 15000 shares of M/s.BPL from M/s.ABPL, Kolkata. However, in Para No.8.3, it is mentioned that the assessee in good faith has purchased the shares of M/s.BPL from a sub-broker in his friends circle. What is the true nature of the transaction? From whom did the assessee actually purchase the shares? Did the assessee take possession of the shares in its physical form? In Para No.8.1 of the Assessment Order, it is mentioned that the assessee is an investor and has been regularly trading in shares. If this is so, does the demat account show such transactions being done by the assessee or is this the only one of transaction. Thus, clearly the facts required for adjudicating the appeals are not forthcoming. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the assessee has held the shares for more than 12 months. This is because assuming that the demat has been done and the shares of M/s.BPL has come into the assessee’sdemat account and has immediately flown out. Then the factum of the possession of the shares for more than 12 months have to be proved by the assessee. This is also not forthcoming. In reply to a specific query, as the date of the demat of shares, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that the demat was done on various dates. Then the question rises as to why there is so much of difference in the dates of demating when 15000 shares have been purchased together on 24.04.2008. No details in respect of M/s.BPL company is known, what is the product of the company which had lead to the share value of the company to go up from Rs.20/- to Rs.352/- in a period of two years. This would clearly be a case where the share value of the company was hitting the circuit breaker of the stock exchange on a daily basis and obviously it would have drawn attention. This being so, as the facts are not coming out of the Assessment Order nor the order of the Ld.CIT(A) nor from the side of the assessee, we are of the view that the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case and we do so. 12.The statement recorded by the Revenue from Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan cannot be used as an evidence against the assessee in so far as the statement has not been given to the assessee nor has Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan been provided to the assessee for cross-examination. However, the assessee shall prove the transaction of the Long Term Capital Gains in respect of which the assessee has claimed the exemption u/s.10(38) by providing all such evidences as required by the AO to substantiate the claim as also by producing the persons through whom the assessee has undertaken the transaction of the purchase and sale of the shares which would include the sub-broker, friend and the broker through whom the transaction has been done, before the AO for examination.”

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.