MINA MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(4), 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’s order dated 15.03.2018, passed in case No.549/CIT(A)-10/C-35(4)/2014-15, affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating her long term capital gains (LTCG for short) arising from sale of shares M/s Unno Industries Ltd. & Sharp Trading Finance Ltd. amounting to ₹95,06,050/- to be bogus followed by 5% commission disallowance thereupon of ₹465,896/- as well as sec. 14A Rule 8D disallowance of ₹45,893/- (not pressed during the course of hearing) respectively, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

4. The CIT(A) confirms Assessing Officer’s action as follows:- “09. FINDINGS & DECISION: [Grounds 4 to 9] 1. I have carefully considered the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.95,06,050/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After an exhaustive discussion and elaborating the factual and legal matrix, I find that the Ld. AO has held that the claim of Long Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38) was to be denied to the assessee-individual, and was to be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Act. The Ld. AO has placed on record the entire gamut of findings, and there is, in my considered view no further requirement for elaboration from this forum. In my view of the facts there are elaborate and direct evidence to clearly indicate that the entire transactions undertaken by the appellant were merely accommodation entries taken for the purpose of such bogus Long Term Capital Gain made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged LTCG, the assessee “earned” exempt income of Rs.95,06,050/- and huge amount brought into the books without paying- a single rupee of tax. The Ld. AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company whose shares were purchased/ sold by the assessee-individual. The economic parameters of the said company over the impugned period has also been brought on record, in the analysis. The rise and fall of the prices as recorded had been brought out by the Ld. AO to be artificial and not commensurate with the normal market, as the Company had no business at all. The Ld. AO has also brought forth information that the Regulatory Authority SEBI has also after investigating such abnormal price increase of certain stocks investigated the matter and suspended trading in certain scripts. It is very clear that the prices of these scripts 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 calor of real transactions. 2. I also find that all the submissions made by the appellant during the course of the appeal point towards the elaborate documentation, meaning thereby that the appellant has produced papers relating to application for the shares, the allotment of the shares, the share certificates, payments by cheque and the necessary papers filed before the Registrar of companies, where the name of the assessee has been Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 4 reflected as a shareholder. The appellant has also filed proof of amalgamation of the companies wherein the shareholding has changed hands. It is also the contention of the appellant that it has provided copies of the bank statement, bank contract notes and delivery instructions to the broker by way of proof that all these transactions were genuine. However, in my considered view of the matter, it is precisely this elaborate paperwork that strengthens the matter relating to the bogus benefit of the LTCG, which clearly has been schemed, preplanned and executed with mala fide intelligence and precision. Therefore all these papers are mere documents and not any evidence. The whole gamut of transactions are unnatural and highly suspicious, and therefore the rules of SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS ought to apply in the instant case. There are grave doubts in the story propounded by the assessee before the authorities below. None of the material produced before the Ld. AO by the assessee-appellant are enough to justify the humongous gains accruing to the assessee by way of Capital Gains. In my considered view the banking documents are mere self serving recitals. The law in the matter of self-serving recitals has been long established by the Hon'ble apex Court. In the case of CIT vs P.Mohankala 291 ITR 278, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the money came by way of bank cheque and was paid through the process of banking transactions was not' by itself of any consequences." The burden of proof is on the assessee in the matter of justification of receipts which are of suspicious and dubious nature. In the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), their Lordships laying down the significance of human probabilities held as under: "in a case where a party relied on self serving recitals in documents, it was for that party to establish the truth of those recitals: the taxing authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of such recitals." Similarly in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), their Lordships held as under: "In view of section 68 of the Act, 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 assesses 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 a case, there is prima facie, evidence against the assessee viz. the receipt of money, and if he fails -to rebut, the said evidence being on-rebutted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature." In the case of Sajjan Das & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Delhi), their Lordships of the High Court of Delhi, while considering a case in which gifts were received by the assessee through banking channels laid importance on the capacity of the donor for making the gift and his identity as well as importance of relationship between the donor and donee in determination of genuineness of gift held as under: "That a mere identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channels was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim of the gift was made by the assessee, the onus lay on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make a gift and that it had actually been received as a gift from the donor. "In my considered view wherever documents are relied upon they should pass the test of normal behavior of the assessee in the course of business viz., human conduct, preponderance of probability and surrounding circumstances. In my considered view, even if documentary evidence is produced, the same must pass the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances if they do not, then addition justified. Reliance on such matters is placed on the case of Smt Phoolwati Devi 314 ITR (AT) 1 (Del.) 3. It must also be stated here that in Commissioner of Income Tax vs NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd on 22 November, 2013, the Hon'ble Delhi High court has held "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. When a fact is alleged and stated before the Assessing Officer by an assessee, he Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 5 must and should examine and verify, when in doubt or when the assertion is debatable. Normally a factual assertion made should be accepted by the Assessing Officer unless for justification and reasons the assessing officer feels that he needs/requires a deeper and detailed verification of the facts alleged. The assessee in such circumstances should cooperate and furnish papers, details and particulars. This may entail issue of notices to third parties to furnish and supply information or confirm facts or even attend as witnesses. The Assessing Officer can also refer to incriminating material or evidence available with him and call upon the assessee to file their response. We cannot lay down or state a general or universal procedure or method which should be adopted by the assessing officer when verification of facts is required. The manner and mode of conducting assessment proceedings has to be left to the discretion of the assessing officer, and the same should be just, fair and should not cause any harassment to the assessee or third persons form whom confirmation or verification is required. The verification and investigation should be one with the least amount of intrusion, inconvenience or harassment especially to third parties, who may have entered into transactions with the assessee. The ultimate finding of the assessing officer should reflect due application or mind on the relevant facts and the decision should take into consideration the entire material, which is germane and which should not be ignored and exclude that which is irrelevant. Certain facts or aspects may be neutral and should be noted. These should not be ignored but they cannot become the bedrock or substratum of the conclusion. The provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable, but the assessing officer being a quasi judicial authority, must take care and caution to ensure that the decision is reasonable and satisfies the canons of equity, fairness and justice. The evidence should be impartially and objectively analyzed to ensure that the adverse findings against the assessee when recorded are adequately and duly supported by material and evidence and can withstand the challenge in appellate proceedings. Principle of preponderance of probabilities applies. What is stated and the said standard, equally apply to the Tribunal and indeed this Court. The reasoning and the grounds given in any decision or pronouncement while dealing with the contentions and issues should reflect application of mind on the relevant aspects. When an assessee does not produce evidence or tries to avoid appearance before the Assessing Officer, it necessarily creates difficulties and prevents ascertainment of true and correct facts as the Assessing Officer is denied advantage of the contention or factual assertion by the assessee before him. In case an assessee deliberately and intentionally fails to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer with the desire to prevent inquiry or investigation, an adverse view should be taken".

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More[1971] 82 ITR 540 at pages 545-547 made a reference to the test of human probabilities in the following fact situation:- " ..... It is true that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real. In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals. Otherwise it will be very easy to make self- serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. If all that an assessee who wants to evade tax is to have some recitals made in a document either executed by him or executed in his favor then the door will be left wide-open to evade tax. A little probing was sufficient in the present case to show that the apparent was not the real. The taxing authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents .

6. It is a well settled principle of law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs,CIT"(214 ITR 801)(SC) that the true nature of transaction have to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances. It needs to be emphasized that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the investigation report. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal v CIT (supra) held that what was meant by saying that evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income-tax Act,1961, was that the rigors of Rules of evidence, contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable; but that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking the principles of Evidence Act, in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that all that Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 did, was to embody a salutary principle of common law, jurisprudence viz, where a person was found in possessing of anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner, was on that person. Thus, this principle could be attracted to circumstances that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings.

7. I am in agreement with the Ld. AO that the transactions relating to the claim of LTCG 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 offload 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. AO has therefore necessarily to consider the surrounding circumstances, which he indeed has done in a very Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 7 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 DEAL T 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 Dayal 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 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, viz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being un-rebutted, 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.”

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Case file as well as the relevant compilation of judicial precedents stand perused. Learned Departmental Representative emphasises time and again that the instant issue of bogus LTCG has rightly been decided against the assessee in both assessment as well as lower appellate proceedings raised pertaining to artificial manipulation of share prices in both M/s Unno Industries Ltd. & Sharp Trading Finance Ltd. We find no force in Revenue’s instant argument. This Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 8 tribunal co-ordinate bench’s decision in ITA 2394/Kol/2017 Prakash Chand Bhutoria vs. ITO decided on 27.06.2018 for AY 2014-15 itself upholds such a share prices increase to be genuine qua the above former entity as under:- 5. In response to the queries raised by the assessing officer on the issue of the fact that the assessee received Rs. 31,62,372/- from sale of once scrips i.e. ‘Unno Industries Ltd.’ the assessee submitted the following facts: “Details of Purchase of share for Long Term capital Gain F.Y.2013-14 (A.Y.2014- 15):

1. 1. I state that I had purchased 100 equity shares of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. on 20.01.2012 from Uniglory Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. was merged with Unno Industries Ltd. and there was change of management and control of Unno Industries ltd. pursuant to scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay.

2. Payment for the purchase of aforesaid 100 equity of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. was made by Account Payee Tamilnad Mercantile Ltd. Bank Cheque no. 736027.

3. Bank statement of Tamilnad Mercantile Ltd. Bank reflecting payment (cheque no. 736027) for purchase of the said investment in equity shares of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. is enclosed (highlighting the said entry). Annexure-I.

4. The equity shares of Unno Industries Ltd. were allotted pursuant upon merger of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. with Unno Industries Ltd. pursuant to sanction of scheme of arrangement by the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, I was issued 91000 equity shares of Unno Industries ltd. in lieu of my shareholding in Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. The relevant gist of the scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Hon’ble High Court was communicated by the company to the Bombay Stock Exchange vide letter dated 12th February, 2013. A copy of the said letter downloaded from BSE website is enclosed for your ready reference. I also enclose Unno Industries Ltd. letter dated 12th February, 2013 and 7th March, 2013 communicating the issuance of shares in lieu shares of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. upon sanction of scheme of arrangement by the Hon’ble Court. Annexure II 5. As the equity shares of Pinnacle Vintrade ltd. purchased were not listed, hence no Contract Notes were issued. However, copy of bill indicating purchase of said equity shares is enclosed. Annexure III 6. Equity shares of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd., were directly purchased from Uniglory Developers Pvt. Ltd. 209, Vireshwar Chambers, M.G. Road, Nera Shan Talkies Vile Parle (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400057.

7. Equity shares of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. were purchased in Physical Form.

8. I have three Demat Accounts as follows- a) Name of DP- Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. (DP ID No. 12034500) Demat account No. 1203450000003128 Address of DP-Trinity, 7th Floor, 226/1, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. DP Account opened on-31.08.2004 b) Name of DP- Guiness Securities Ltd. (DP ID No. IN302898) Demat account No. 10350406 Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 9 Address of DP-Guiness House, 18, Deshpriya Park Road, Kolkata-700026. DP A/c opened on-25.05.2013 c) Name of DP- Tamilnad Mercantile Bank ltd. (DP ID No. IN303069) Demat account No. 10051996 Address of DP-Pearl Towers DPS Cell, AC 16, III Floor, II Avenue, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-600040.

9. Demat Statements of M/s Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. and Guiness Securities Ltd. for f.y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 in respect of long term capital gains are enclosed. Annexure IV.

1. 1. The equity shares of M/s Unno Industries Ltd. are listed at Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), a recognized Stock Exchange of India since last so many years and even during the time of sale by me. The security code of the said equity shares at BSE is 519273 and ISIN No. is INE 142N01023.

2. Equity shares of Unno Industries Ltd. were sold on Bombay Stock Exchange through SEBI registered stock broker Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. and Guiness Securities Ltd. whose details are as under: a) Name: Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. Address: Trinity, 7th Floor, 226/1, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. Contact No. 033 22839952. b) Name: Guiness Securities Ltd. Address: Guiness House, 18, Deshpriya Park Road, Kolkata-700026 Contact No. 033 30015555.

3. Contract Notes issued regarding sale of equity shares of Unno Industries Ltd. on Bombay Stock Exchange by SEBI registered brokers- Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. and Guiness Securities ltd. are enclosed. Annexure V.

4. The relevant Demat Account statements of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. and Guiness Securities Ltd. reflecting the debit of shares of Unno Industries Ltd. upon sale are enclosed. (entries highlighted). Annexure VI.

5. The Ledger of the brokers of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. and Guiness Securities Ltd. for the financial year 2013-14 are enclosed. Annexure VII.

6. Tamilnad Mercantile Ltd. bank Statement reflecting the receipts of sale consideration from the SEBI registered stock brokers (highlighting the said entries) is enclosed. Annexure VIII.

7. Out of sale consideration money of Rs. 3151423.00 from Unno Industries Ltd. a sum of Rs. 3150000.00 has been invested in equity shares of Glow Diam Designs Pvt. Ltd. All the evidences were attached as annexures as stated above.

Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 10 6. The Assessing Officer in his order did not refer to any of these evidences. Instead at para 6 and 7 he concluded held as follows: “6. The details of purchase and sale of this particular scrip i.e. ‘Unno Industries Ltd.’ (hereinafter referred as The Scrip) were examined in which shares were sold in June/August, 2013 at the price of Rs. 31,62,379/- and purchased Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. a humongous rise of over 3100% over a very short period of just 24 months. These facts demanded a deeper study of the price movements and share market behavior of the entities involved in trade, of the scrip as the share price movements and the profit earned by the beneficiaries were beyond human probabilities. Thus a deeper study was needed to ascertain whether the transactions were genuine investment transaction of sham ones and colorable device only to convert the unaccounted cash into tax exempt.

7. Apart from this, the directorate of income tax, Kolkata various enquiries have been made on project basis, which has resulted into the unearthing of huge syndicate of entry operators, share brokers and money lender involved in providing bogus accommodation entries of Long Term Capital gain and short term capital loss. It has come to the light that large scale manipulation has been done in market price of shown of certain companies listed in the BSE by certain beneficiary is utilized to purchase shares of such company at a very high artificially inflated market price. Some of the listed companies directly or in directly owned by operators and whose shares price have been apparently manipulated by the syndicate of operators. Out of the above enquiry made by DIT(Inv.), Kolkata has established that one of the main manipulated company which you had availed is also under this syndicate. Hence, it is crystal clear that Sharp Trading Company is one of the main manipulated company (Penny listed) to convert unaccounted cash of beneficiary through long term capital gain with claim a certain percentage of commission.”

9. The AO further relies on the shop increase of 31000% of the value of shares over the period of 2 years. Though this is highly suspicious, it cannot take the place of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that suspicion however strong cannot be the basis for making an addition. The evidence produced by the assessee listed above proves his case and the AO could not controvert the same by bringing on record any evidence. The evidence said to have been collected by the DIT (INV.), Kolkata and the report is not produced before this Bench.

10. I now discuss the case law on the subject. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata-III vs. Smt. Shreyashi Ganguli reported in [2012] (9) TMI 1113 held as follows: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld.. Tribunal is perverse in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the facts on record. The ld. Tribunal after considering the material and hearing came to a fact finding which is as follows: The Assessing Officer has doubted the transaction since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI’s action. However, the demat account given the statement of transactions from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 i.e. relevant for the assessment year under appeal (2005-06) are before us. There cannot be any doubt about the transaction as has been observed by the assessing officer. The transactions were as per norms under controlled by the Securities Transaction Tax, brokerage service tax and cess, which were already paid. They were complied with. All the transactions were through bank. There is no iota of evidence over the above transactions as it were through demat format. Hence, we agree with the given findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in accepting the transactions as genuine too. In view of the fact findings we cannot reappreciate, recording is such, cannot be said to be perverse as it is not fact finding of the ld. Tribunal alone. The commissioner of Income Tax came to the same fact finding. Concurrent fact finding itself makes the story of perversity, unbelievable.” The “D” Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, in dated 15.11.2017 at para 19 onwards held as follows: (i) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] (Cal HC) – In this case the ld AO found that the formal evidences produced by the assessee to support huge losses claimed in the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were stage managed. The Hon’ble High Court held that the opinion of the AO that the assessee generated a sizeable amount of loss out Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 12 of prearranged transactions so as to reduce the quantum of income liable for tax might have been the view expressed by the ld AO but he miserably failed to substantiate that. The High Court held that the transactions were at the prevailing price and therefore the suspicion of the AO was misplaced and not substantiated. (ii) CIT V. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Limited [2013] 40 taxmann.com 439 (Cal) – In this case the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that on the basis of a suspicion howsoever strong it is not possible to record any finding of fact. As a matter of fact suspicion can never take the place of proof. It was further held that in absence of any evidence on record, it is difficult if not impossible, to hold that the transactions of buying or selling of shares were colourable transactions or were resorted to with ulterior motive. (iii) CIT V. Shreyashi Ganguli [ITA No. 196 of 2012] (Cal HC) – In this case the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the Assessing Officer doubted the transactions since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI’s action. However the transactions were as per norms and suffered STT, brokerage, service tax, and cess. There is no iota of evidence over the transactions as it were reflected in demat account. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. (iv) CIT V. Rungta Properties Private Limited [ITA No. 105 of 2016] (Cal HC) – In this case the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this tribunal , wherein, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee where the AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee in respect of his transactions in alleged penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the AO disallowed the loss on trading of penny stock on the basis of some information received by him. However, it was also found that the AO did not doubt the genuineness of the documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the AO’s conclusions are merely based on the information received by him. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. (v) CIT V. Andaman Timbers Industries Limited [ITA No. 721 of 2008] (Cal HC) – In this case the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this Tribunal wherein the loss suffered by the Assessee was allowed since the AO failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the sale of shares by the Assessee were not genuine. (vi) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in of 2009 dated 29.4.2009] – In this case the Assessee claimed exemption of income from Long Term Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. It was also found that the assessee produced the contract notes, details of demat accounts and produced documents showing all payments were received by the assessee through banks. On these facts, the appeal of the revenue was summarily dismissed by High Court. 8.4. 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 Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 13 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. For coming to such a conclusion we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Alipine Investments in of 2008 dated 26th August, 2008 wherein the High Court held as follows : “It appears that there was loss and the whole transactions were supported by the contract notes, bills and were carried out through recognized stock broker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and all the bills were received from the share broker through account payee which are also filed in accordance with the assessment. It appears from the facts and materials placed before the Tribunal and after examining the same, the tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee. In doing so the tribunal held that the transactions cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises. However it was held that the transactions of the shares are genuine. Therefore we do not find that there is any reason to hold that there is no substantial question of law held in this matter. Hence the appeal being ITA No.620 of 2008 is dismissed.” 8.5. 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.

by the revenue are dismissed.” Applying the proposition of law laid down in all the above referred cases, the facts of this case, I find force in the submission of the assessee and there are backed by evidence. I also find that the revenue has not based its finding on in any evidence. In view of the above discussion the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is hereby deleted.”

6. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends at this stage that the DIT(Inv) has carried out a detailed investigation in various entry operators cases. They have been found to have rigged such kind of scrips’ prices. There is not even a single material during the course of hearing which could suggest the assessee to have engaged in any kind of foul play. This tribunal’s another co-ordinate bench decision in ITA No.2281/Kol/2017 Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 16 Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO decided on 20.07.2018 has rejected Revenue’s all these arguments as follows: 9. The ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of the assessing officer and reiterated the findings made therein and submitted that the same be upheld. He vehemently argued that merely because the assessee has produced all the evidences required to prove his claim, the same cannot be accepted as these are organized and managed transactions. He took this bench through the modus operandi mentioned by the AO and submitted that in all cases where the shares of these companies are purchased and sold, additions have to be made, irrespective of the evidence produced as there are cases where manipulation has taken place. He reiterated each and every observation and finding of the ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed that the same be upheld.

10. After careful consideration of the rival submissions, perusal of the papers on record and order of the lowers authorities below, as well as case law cited, we hold as follows.

1. 1. The assessee had made an application for allotment of 50000 equity shares of “Smart champs IT and Infra Ltd.” and she was allotted the share on 3rd December 2011 (copy of Application form, intimation of allotment and share certificate Paper Book at page 8 to 10).

2. The payment for the allotment of shares was made through an account payee cheque (copy of the bank statement evidencing the source of money and payment made to “Smart Champs IT & Infra Ltd.” for such shares allotted is placed in the Paper Book at page no. 11).

3. Annual return no. 20B was filed with Registrar of companies by “Smart Champs IT & Infra Ltd” showing the assessee’s name as shareholder (copy of annual return no. 20B filed with Registrar of companies by “Smart Champs IT & Infra Ltd. “is placed in the Paper Book at page no. 12 to 18.) 4. The assessee lodged the said shares with the Depository M/s. Eureka Stock & Share Broking Services Ltd. with a Demat request on 11th February, 2012. The said shares were dematerialized on 31st March, 2012 (copy of demat request slip along with the transaction statement is placed in the paper book at page no. 19 to 21).

5. On 24.01.2013, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court approved the scheme of amalgamation of “Smart Champs IT and Infra Ltd.” with “Cressanda Solutions Ltd.” In accordance with the said scheme of amalgamation, the assessee was allotted 50000 equity shares of “M/s. Cressanda Solutions Ltd.” The demat shares are reflected in the transaction statement of the period from 1st November 2011 to 31st December, 2013 (A copy of the scheme of amalgamation alongwith copy of order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and a copy of the letter to this effect submitted by “Cressanda Solutions Ltd”. to Bombay Stock Exchange is placed in the Paper Book at page no 22 to 43.) 6. The assessee sold 50000 shares costing Rs. 500000/- through her broker “SKP Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd” which was a SEBI registered broker and earned a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,18,13,072/-. (Copy of the bank statement, brokers contract note together with the delivery instructions given to the DP and broker’s confirmation is also placed in the paper book at page no 44 to 65).

Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 17 7. Copy of Form No. 10DB issued by the broker, in support of charging of S.T.T. in respect of the transactions appearing in the ledger is placed in the paper book at page no. 66.

8. The holding period of the said scrip is more than one year (above 500 days) through in order to get the benefit of claim of Long Term Capital Gain the holding period is required to be 365 days. 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 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.

Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 18 15. In our view, just the modus operandi, generalisation, preponderance of human probabilities cannot be the only basis for rejecting the claim of the assessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale price are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash would have changed hands. The courts have laid down that judicial notice of such notorious facts cannot be taken based on generalisations. Courts of law are bound to go by evidence.

Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 19 “Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling food grains and other commodities to Bengal by country boats acquired by Sahibgunj and the notoriety achieved by Dhulian as a great receiving centre for such commodities were merely a background of suspicion and the appellant could not be tarred with the same brush as every arhatdar and grain merchant who might have been indulging in smuggling operations, without an iota of evidence in that behalf. The cancellation of the food grain licence at Nawgachia and the prosecution of the appellant under the Defence of India Rules was also of no consequence inasmuch as the appellant was acquitted of the offence with which it had been charged and its licence also was restored. The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single transaction or in a chain of transactions could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination notes,---this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. As regards the disclosed volume of business in the year under consideration in the head office and in branches the Income-tax Officer indulged in speculation when he talked of the possibility of the appellant earning a considerable sum as against which it showed a net loss of about Rs.45,000. 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.

Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 21 “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.

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.”

Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 23 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 Assessing Officer 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 pricerigging/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 assessee/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 Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 24 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 KOLKATAITAT in the case of SHALEENKHEMANI [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 MUMBAI ITAT 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 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 Mina Mehta Vs. ITO Sd-35(4) Kol. Page 25 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 sales out of purchases made from Raj Impex which were also accepted by the Revenue, no question of law arises.”