KIRAN KOTHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आदेश/ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

(v) The bank statement of the maintained with Bank of Maharastra reflecting the payment received for the sale of shares.

(b) That the transactions of purchase of shares were not doubted by the AO in the year of purchase i.e AY 2010-2011. The off market transaction for purchase of shares is not illegal as was held by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO in dated 2.12.2016. The transactions were all through account payee cheques and reflected in the books of accounts. The purchase of shares and the sale of shares were also reflected in Demat account statements. The sale of shares suffered STT, brokerage etc.

(c) The AR also stated that as the sale was made on the online platform of the stock exchange it was his submission that the assessee did not know the names of the buyers and has no connection and/or relations with any such persons. The transactions of sale of shares were online trading system through his broker from whom he received the sale consideration. The broker also receives payments for all his transactions from Stock Exchange. The seller and the buyer cannot know the names of each other as well as their respective brokers, who were involved in the trading transactions in the secondary platform. In such a situation according to ld AR, it cannot be presumed that there could be any transfer of cash between the buyers and sellers to convert the unaccounted money of the beneficiaries as alleged by the AO. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay 4

High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bom) to contend that there was no evidence whatsoever to allege that money changed hands between the assessee and the broker or any other person including the alleged exit provider whatsoever to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG as alleged. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another, addition cannot be sustained.

(d) That the brokers and persons named in the statement of the MD of the Company which was recorded in the survey proceedings of the Department did not contain the name of the assessee, nor his broker and nor did the assessee know any of the persons name therein.

(e) The ld AR submitted that all the observations, conclusions and findings of the lower authorities are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. According to ld AR, it is trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion how so ever strong it may appear to be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai-Trib.)(SB).

(f) The ld AR drew our attention to the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. The ld AR drew our attention to the fact that in the statement of third party, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, according to ld AR, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination. The ld AR referred to and relied on the following judgements in support of the aforesaid submissions:- (i) Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)

(ii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – (Agra ITAT) (iii) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA No. 247/(Kol) of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iv) ITO vs. Bijaya Ganguly - ITA Nos. 624 & 625/Kol/2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Ganeshmull Bijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA Nos. 544/Kol/2013 (Kolkata ITAT) (vi) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patadia vs. ITO - ITA No.3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (viii) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO – [2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (ix) Sunita Jain vs. ITO - ITA No. 201 & 502/Ahd/2016 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (x) Atul Kumar Khandelwal vs. DCIT – ITA No. 874/Del/2016 (Delhi ITAT) (xi) Farah Marker vs. ITO – ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 (Mumbai ITAT) 6

(g) That according to ld AR, the statement recorded under oath during survey proceedings has no evidentiary value and hence the same cannot be used against the assessee. The ld AR referred to and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs S Khader Khan Sons reported in (2012) 210 Taxman 248 (SC) wherein it was held that the statement recorded on oath u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value, since during survey, authorities under the Act has not been empowered to administer oath and so any admission made during such statement cannot be made the sole basis of addition.

(h) The Ld AR relied on the following decisions and the summarized their ratio as held in the said decisions:

(i) 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.

(ii) 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 ld AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee in respect of his transactions in alleged penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the ld 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 ld AO did not doubt the genuineness of the documents submitted by the 7 assessee. The Tribunal held that the ld AO’s conclusions are merely based on the information received by him. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

(iii) 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 ld AO failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the sale of shares by the Assessee were not genuine.

(iv) 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 ld 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.

(i) The AR drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pr CIT Vs Rungta Properties Private Limited ITAT No 105 of 2016 dated 8th May 2017 wherein it was held:

(11) On the last point, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not brought on records any material to show that the transactions in shares of the company involved were false or fictitious. It is finding of the assessing officer that the scrips of this company was executed by a broker through cross deals and the broker was suspended for some time. It is assessee’s contention on the other that even though there are allegations against the broker, but for that reason alone the assessee cannot be held liable. On this point the Tribunal held – “As a matter of fact the AO doubted the integrity of the broker or the manner in which the broker operation as per the statement of one of the directors of the broker firm and also AO observed that assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of the intention of showing trading of shares only in three penny stocks. AO relied the loss of Rs.25,30,396/- only on the basis of information submitted by the Stock fictitious. AO has also not doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee. AO’s observation and conclusion are merely based on the information representative. Therefore on such basis no disallowance can be made and accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of assessee. Thus ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed.” We agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal on this point also. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The suggested questions, in our opinion do not raise any substantial question of law.

(j) The AR drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of ALPINE INVESTMENTS ITA 620 of 2008dated 26th August 2008 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as follows:

“It appears that the share loss and the whole transactions were supported by contract notes, bills and were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and all the payments made to the stockbroker and all the payments received 9 from stockbroker through account payee instruments, which were 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 came to the conclusion and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In doing so, the Tribunal held that the transaction fully supported by the documentary evidences could not be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises. However, it was held that the transactions of share are genuine. Therefore, we do not find that there is any reason to hold that there is any substantial question of law involved in this matter. Hence, the appeal being of 2008 is dismissed.”

(k) The ld AR concluded that where the purchase and sale transactions are supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements etc., the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by the AO in earlier years, the same could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:-

(i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO – ITA No. 1213/Kol/2016 (Kol ITAT) (vii) Sunita Jain vs. ITO – ITA No. 201 & 502/Ahd/2016 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (viii) Ms. Farrah Marker vs. ITO – ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 (Mumbai ITAT)

(ix) Anil Nandkishore Goyal vs. ACIT – (Pune ITAT) (x) CIT vs. Sudeep Goenka – [2013] 29 taxmann.com 402 (Allahabad HC) (xi) CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal – [2013] 29 taxmann.com 76 (Allahabad HC) (xii) CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HC) (xiii) CIT vs. Himani M. Vakil – [2014] 41 taxmann.com 425 (Gujarat HC) (xiv) CIT vs. Maheshchandra G. Vakil – [2013] 40 taxmann.com 326 (Gujarat HC) (xv) CIT vs. Sumitra Devi [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 37 (Rajasthan HC) (xvi) Ganeshmull Bijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA Nos. 544/Kol/2013 (Kolkata ITAT) (xvii) Meena Devi Gupta & Others vs. ACIT – ITA Nos. 4512 & 4513/Ahd/2007 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (xviii) Manish Kumar Baid ITA 1236/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT) (xix) Mahendra Kumar Baid ITA 1237/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT)

(l) The ld AR further submitted before us that once the assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the genuineness of the transactions, the onus to disprove the same is on revenue. He referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] 1 SCC 816 (SC). In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and the burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing evidence of a definite character which would directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising inference of that fact. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that it is not enough to show circumstances which might create 11 suspicion because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. As per the ld AR the AO/ CIT(A) was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act to hold that the sale proceeds of shares. There is no evidence on record to disbelieve that the assessee sold shares through registered share and stock broker with CSE. The assessee produced all evidences to explain the source of the amounts received by the assessee from the brokers. The AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.

(i)The balance sheet of the assessee for the financial year 2011-12 wherein the investment made in these shares were duly recorded and reflected (page 16 of the paper book); ii) The bills of purchase of shares of M/s. Tuni Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd (page 18 of the paper book) iii)Copy of the demat statement maintained with M/s. CD Equi Search where the shares were held (page 24 of the paper book) iv) Copy of the contract notes issued by M/s. CD Equi Search Ltd, Member of Mumbai Stock Exchange having SEBI Registration No.INB010781133 and Code No.087 (page 19 to 22 of the paper book v) The bank statement maintained by the assessee with Bank of Maharshtra reflecting the payment received for the sale of shares (page 23 of the paper book).

9.2. We find force in the contentions of the ld. AR that the AO and CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstance, human conduct and preponderance of probability without bringing on record any relevant legally admissible evidence against the assessee. For the said proposition we rely on the judgment of the Special Bench of Mumbai Bench in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra). The various facets of the contention of the AO, to rope in the assessee for drawing adverse inferences which remain unproved based on the 14 evidence available on record are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The principles laid down in various case laws relied upon by the ld. AR are also not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We further find that neither the reports relied on by the AO has not been brought on record nor is there any reference of finding of such report to impute the assessee is there on record. The AO has merely carved out certain features/modus- operandi of companies indulging in practices not sanctioned by law and as mentioned in such report. However, we note that neither any investigation was carried out against the assessee nor against the brokers to whom the assessee dealt with the purchase and sale of shares in question. Thus the AO has failed to bring on record any material contained in the purported reports which are having so called adverse impact on the assessee. We further find that the company under scanner was having share Capital as on 31.03.2013 of Rs.13.18 crores and was having assets worth Rs.24.25 crores and a turn over of Rs.19.32 crores and profit of Rs.1.35 crores. Thus the allegation that these companies did not have financial credentials is not correct and so is perverse and therefore we do not subscribe to the said finding and necessarily negate the finding. At the cost of repetition, we find that the transactions of sale of shares by the assessee was duly backed up by material/evidence including contract notes, demat statement, bank account reflecting transactions, the stock brokers have confirmed the transactions (pages 24-25 of the paper book), the shares having been sold on the online platform of the stock exchange and each trade of sale of shares were having unique trade number and trade time. It is not the case of the AO that the shares which were sold on the date mentioned in the contract note were not the traded price on that particular date. The AO doubted the transactions due to the high rise in the stock price and for that the assessee cannot be blamed unless there was any material/evidence to prove that the assessee or any one on his behalf has rigged the stock price. It should be noted that the Stock Exchange and SEBI are the statutory authorities appointed by the Govt. of India to ensure that there is no stock rigging or manipulation. The AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that these agencies have alleged any stock manipulation 15 against the assessee or the brokers or the company in question. In absence of any evidence to back the conclusion of AO/CIT(A), it cannot be said that merely because the stock price moved sharply, the assessee was to be blamed for bogus transitions. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee has purchased the stocks through registered brokers and thereafter the assessee has sold the shares through the registered share/stock brokers with Calcutta Stock Exchange, and both have confirmed the transactions and have issued valid contract notes as per law; and in similar case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs Rungta Properties in of 2016 dated 08 May, 2017 wherein it was held that “on the last point, the tribunal held that the AO had not brought relevant material to show that the transactions in shares of the company involved were false or fictitious. It is the finding of the AO that the scripts of this company was executed by a broker and the broker was suspended for some time. It is the assessee’s contention that even though there are allegations against the broker, and for that reason the assessee cannot be held liable on this point, the tribunal held that – “As a matter of fact the AO doubted the integrity of the broker and the broker firm and also AO observed that the assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of any discussion of trading of shares. The AO relied the loss of Rs.25,30,396/- only on the basis of information submitted by stock as fictitious. The AO has also not doubted the genuineness of the documents placed by the assessee on record. The AO’s observation and conclusion are merely based on information. Therefore on such basis, no disallowance can be made and accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CiT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. This ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed.” We agree with the reasoning of the tribunal on this point also. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The suggested question, in our opinion do not raise any substantial question of law.”

9.3. In the light of the documents stated i.e. (i to v) in Page14(supra) 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 16 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 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. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, for allowing the appeal 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.” 17 9.4. 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.