SMT. NALINI BOTHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata dated 14.03.2017 in case No.219-CIT(A)-10/W-35(3)/16-17/Kol involving proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges both the lower authorities’ identical action terming its Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of ₹34,25,766/- to be bogus thereby adding the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. We A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 2 deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce CIT(A)’s detailed findings affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect as follows:- “07. DECISION:

1.

2. The Ld. AO has also brought forth information that the Regulatory Authority SEBI has also after investigating such abnormal price increases of certain stocks investigated the matter and suspended trading in certain scripts. It is very clear that the prices of these scrips fell sharply after the offloading of these scripts by pre- arranged and manipulated transactions. The entire transactions were carried out on the Stock Exchange to give it a color of real transactions.

3. The Ld. AO has confronted the assessee-appellant with the facts as available in the statement of one Shri Anuj Agarwal of M/s Korp Securities Ltd, who represented the Broker which has facilitated the trading of the impugned shares. During the assessment stage, the assessee-individual has after receipt of the final show cause notice chosen not to answer, and therefore I find no merit in the claim of the appellant during the appeal stage that no proper opportunity had been given to the assessee in the scrutiny stage.

4. I am in agreement with the Ld. AO that the transactions relating to the claim of LTCG as made by the Ld. AO come within the ambit of "suspicious transactions", and therefore the rules of suspicious transactions would apply to the case. Payment through Banks, performance through stock exchange and other such features are only apparent features. The real features are the manipulated and abnormal price of off load and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, I have to reach the inevitable conclusion that the transactions as discussed by the Ld.AO fall in the realm of "suspicious" and "dubious" transactions. The Ld. AD has therefore necessarily to consider the surrounding circumstances, which he indeed has done in a very meticulous and careful manner. In the case of Win Chadha Vs CIT (International Taxation) in 3107/Del/200S, the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT "B"-Bench has observed, on 31.12.2010 as under: "SUSPICIOUS AND DIBIOUS TRASANCTION HOW TO BE DEALT WITH: 6.11. The tax liability in the cases of suspicious transactions, is to be assessed on the basis of the material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/ evidence available with AO. 6.12. In the case of Sumati Daya/ V. CIT (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the relevance of human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and surrounding circumstance, burden of proof and its shifting on the Department in cases of suspicious circumstances, by following observations: “… … It is, no doubt, true that in all cases in which a receipt Is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is within the A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 3 taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. But in view of section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof Is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such case there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, vtz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being unrebutted, can be used against him by holding that it is a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably. ........... Having regard to the conduct of the appellant as disclosed in her sworn statement as well as other material on the record, an inference could reasonably be drawn that the winning tickets were purchased by the appellant after the event. The majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. It could not be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts had been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts were income of the appellant from other sources was not based on evidence. " CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HOW TO BE USED 6.13. It would, at this stage, be relevant to consider the admissibility and use of circumstantial evidence in income tax proceedings. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of the circumstances, as opposed to direct evidence. It may consist of evidence afforded by the bearing on the fact to be proved, of other and subsidiary facts, which are relied on as inconsistent with any result other than the truth of the principal fact. It is evidence of various facts, other than the fact in issue which are so associated with the fact in issue, that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances leading to an inference or presumption of the existence of the principal fact. In the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the relevant aspects, as laid down from time to time are - (1) the circumstances alleged must be established by such evidence, as In the case of other evidence (2) the circumstances proved must be of a conclusive nature and not totally Inconsistent with the circumstances or contradictory to other evidence. (3) although there should be no missing links in the case, yet It is not essential that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced; some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts; (4) in drawing those Inferences or presumptions, the Authorities must have regard to the common course of natural events, to human conduct and their relation to the facts of the particular case. (5) The circumstantial evidence can, with equal facility, be resorted to In proof of a fact In issue which arises In proceedings for the assessment of taxes both direct and Indirect, circumstantial evidence can be made use of In order to prove or disprove a fact alleged or in issue. In fact, in whatever proceedings or context Inferences are required to be drawn from the evidence or materials A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 4 available or lacking, circumstantial evidence has its place to assist the process of arriving at the truth." 6.14. It will also be worthwhile to consider the nature of burden of proof on the AO for proving a fact or circumstance in the Income tax proceedings. The questions raised about the tax liability by the AO are to be answered by the assessee by furnishing reasonable and plausible explanations. If assessee is not forthcoming with proper or complete facts or his statement or explanation is contradictory, drawing of suitable Inferences and estimation of facts is inevitable. Courts generally will not interfere with such estimate of facts, unless the inferences or estimates are perverse or capricious. 6.15. The Assessee's technical contentions about admissibility and reliance on material available on the AO's record are In the nature of contentions challenging criminal or civil liabilities in a court of law. We are dealing with a process of adjudication of assesses tax liability I.e. assessment under Income Tax Act rather than conducting criminal or civil court proceedings. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of S.S. Gadgll (supra) no 'lis' is involved in adjudication of tax liability. The Assessee's contention that there was no new material before the AO after the CIT(A)'s setting aside order cannot be accepted. New information and material did indeed come on record. In our view, in a sensitive matter like this, even a Single clue or revelation can be of great Importance. To reverse the order of the AO on this technical plea will amount to taking a lopsided view of the proceedings. Besides, the JPC has underlined the importance of Reports of investigation agencies like CBI, DRI, ED whose were in the offing, as the relevant investigations were in process. In view of these observations, we do not accede to the assessee's pleas in this behalf. The Assessee's contentions and objections in this behalf that the material available on record was not admissible as evidence and that It cannot be relied on by the AO, are devoid of any merit and are rejected outright." In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same. Grounds 4,5,6,& 7 taken by the appellant stand dismissed.”

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contations. Case file perused.

4. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly added the impugned bogus LTCG u/s 68 of the Act in assessee’s hands. He quotes case laws Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) in support. The Revenue’s case therefore is that impugned addition is liable to be sustained.

5. We are given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We first of all find that this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s order in Neeraj Gupta vs. ITO in rejects Revenue’s identical arguments regarding the said assessee’s LTCG derived from sale of shares held in M/s NCL Research Finance Services Ltd. as follows:- “2. The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s UNNO Industries Limited and M/s NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. The AO based on a general report and modus operandi adopted generally in these cases and on general observations has concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain. He made an addition of the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income and rejected the claim of exemption made u/s 10(38) of the Act. The evidence produced by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transactions was rejected. 3.The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee, in support of the genuineness of the transactions. In other words, the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. The entre conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities, are based on a common A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 6 report of the Director o Investigation, Kolkata, which was general in nature and not specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given.

6. The ld. Departmental Representative filed detailed written submissions and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Rakhi Trading Private Ltd in Civil Appeal No.1969 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos. 3174-3177 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No.3180 of 2011. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there is no surviving order of SEBI against the assessee or the company, the script of which was purchased and sold by the assessee. When there is no surviving adverse order of SEBI, against the claim of the assessee, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be applied to the facts of this case.

A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 10 24. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944,considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross- examination of a witness. In the said case, the Assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of accounts, and that excise duty had been paid. The Court held that such a request could not be turned down, as the denial of the right to cross-examine, would amount to a denial of the right to be heard i.e. audi alterampartem.

5. According to us, not allowing the Assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 11 made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the Assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the Assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the Assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the Assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the Appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain 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.

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.”

A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 13 d) The BENCH “D”OF KOLKATAITAT in the case of GAUTAM PINCHA[ITA No.569/Kol/2017]order dated 15.11.2017 held as under vide Page 12 Para 8.1: “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 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 A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 14 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 the transactions of the assessee were bona fide 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 MUMBAIITAT in the case of ARVINDKUMAR JAINHUF[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 A.Y. 201-15 Smt. Nalini Bothra Vs. ITO Wd-35(3) Kol. Page 15 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 OF2010] 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 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 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 Rohit kumar 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