Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Smt. Minu Gupta , Kolkata vs Ito, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata , Kolkata on 12 December, 2018
1
ITA No. 731/Kol/2018
Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15
आयकर अपील
य अधीकरण, यायपीठ - "B" कोलकाता,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: KOLKATA
(सम )Before ी जे. सध
ु ाकर रे डी, लेखा सद य एवं/and ी ऐ. ट . वक , यायीक सद य)
[Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]
I.T.A. No. 731/Kol/2018
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Smt. Minu Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-44(1), Kolkata
(PAN: ADNPG3805F)
Appellant Respondent
Date of Hearing 13.11.2018
Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2018
For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
ORDER
Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM
This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata dated 02.01.2017 for AY 2014-15.
2. The sole issue of assessee's appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.46,83,790/- made to the total income of the assessee by not accepting the assessee's claim of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s. NCL Research Ltd. (in short "NCL").
3. Briefly stated facts as taken note by AO are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, capital gain and other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee had claimed LTCG amounting to Rs.46,83,790/- on sale of shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. and M/s. NCL, which was claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as the sales transaction of such shares was subjected to Security Transaction Tax.
2 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 According to AO, on perusal of the documents he noticed that the assessee had sold 72800 shares of Unno Industries Ltd. for a gross sale consideration of Rs.9,68,240/- through transactions on 07/03/2014. The history of it being, shares in the name of M/s Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. were purchased by the assessee from M/s. Uniglory Developers Pvt. Ltd. numbering 80 @ Rs.1250/- per share for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.01.2012. The company issued bonus shares @ 90:1 shares to the shareholders and the holding of the assessee was increased to 7200 shares. In later stage, the Pinnacle Vintrade Limited was merged with Unno Industries Ltd. and the shareholders of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. got 10 shares of Unno Industries Ltd. for each shares held by them. It was also noticed by the AO that the assessee had sold 2780 shares of NCL for a gross sale consideration of Rs. 40,64,609/- through transactions on 02/07/2013, 04/07/2013, 08-08-2013, 12-08-2013 and 07-03-2014. The said 2780 shares of M/s. NCL were purchased for a sum of Rs. 2,64,050/- (@ Rs.88/- per Share) on 28/03/2011 and 29/03/2011.
The AO noted the script wise LTCG made by the assessee during the year as under:
Name of the scrip Purchase amount Sale amount LTCG NCLR 264050/- (3000 shares) 4064609/-(2780 shares) 3819923/- Unno Industries Ltd. 100000/-(72800 shares) 963866/- 72800 shares 863866/-
The AO noted that he had received information from the office of the DGIT(Inv.), WB, Sikkim & NER ,Kolkata in respect of 'Dissemination of intelligence regarding tax evasion by showing long term capital gains perpetrated through accommodation entry operators'. According to AO, the said information was prepared after detail and thorough investigation and it contains (i) the BSE listed penny stock which have been used for generating bogus LTCG, (ii) list of share brokers,(iii) Modus operandi and (iv)LTCG summary in soft form containing total amount of sale by individual beneficiaries along with the PAN and address as given to the broker under KYC. After perusal of the aforesaid information, the AO observed that the name, address and PAN of the assessee along with the name of the scrip that the assessee sold, features prominently in the soft form of the information so received. So a letter was issued to the assessee on 31.10.2016 requesting explanation/ clarification on the issue involved. Pursuant to which the assessee replied vide letter dated 09.12.2016. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO noted that the assessee has not 3 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 purchased or sold any other share except the said transaction and she is not a regular share trader. According to AO, she has only made investment in these scrips anticipating a windfall and claimed a substantial amount of LTCG, which is totally exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Moreover, AO noted that the scrip is not that of a blue chip company from which substantial gain is expected. According to AO, this defies all logic and surrounding circumstances also does not substantiate the claim of the assessee. As such, according to AO, in view of the aforesaid and in the light of information received from the DGIT (Inv.), WB, Sikkim and NER, Kolkata as well as detailed investigation made by SEBI it transpires that the share transaction of the assessee is a kind of sham transaction to evade taxation and to channelize her own fund from unknown sources to a legitimate form of income. Hence, according to AO, the claim of the assessee in respect of exempt income under the head LTCG is a bogus claim and therefore, a sum of Rs.46,83,790/- being gross sale consideration of shares as credited in the books of the assessee was added back by the AO to the total income of the assessee under the head undisclosed income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee has preferred this appeal before us.
4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld AR submitted that the assessee sold her shares in M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. and that of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. in the previous financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and claimed it as exempt income u/s. 10(38) of the Act which has not been accepted by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that similar action was taken by the AO/Ld. CIT(A) in respect of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. and M/s Unno Industries Ltd which action has not been accepted by the Tribunal and therefore prayed that assessee's claim need to be allowed and drew our attention to the decisions of the Tribunal wherein such claims have been upheld:
i) Sri Gaurav Pincha Vs. ITO, ITA No.644/Kol/2018 & Sri Gautam Kumar Pincha & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No. 645/Kol/2018 dated 24.10.2018.
ii) Prakash Chand Bhutoria Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2394/Kol/2017 dated 27.06.2018
iii) Navneet Agarwal Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2281/Kol/2017 dated 20.07.2018.4 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018
Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15
5. However, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the action of the authorities below and drew our attention to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in SEBI Vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos. 3174-3177 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 3180 of 2011 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to restore the penalty levied by the Adjudicating authority of SEBI on the traders (i) Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Tungrali Trade Place Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) TLB Securities Ltd. Therefore, according to Ld. DR, the Hon'ble Supreme court has reversed the action of the Securities Appellate Tribunal and restored the order of the Adjudicating Officer of the SEBI in penalizing the traders for violation of the regulations of the SEBI's (Prohibition of Fraudulent and unfair trade practice relating to Securities Market) in respect to traders. Therefore, according to Ld. DR, this price rigging unscrupulous practice of the assessee had to be sternly dealt with and, therefore, the impugned orders of the authorities below need not be interfered with.
6. Having heard both the sides, we note that the assessee is an Individual who filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 27-03- 2015 declaring an income of Rs. 3,45,350/-. Her sources of income during the previous year were Commodities Profit, Interest Income, Miscellaneous Income and long term capital gain on sale of shares. During the previous year relevant to assessment year in question, the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gain Rs.46,83,790/- from sale of share of M/S. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. and M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. Since the sales transaction of these shares was subjected to Security Transaction Tax (STT), such long term capital gain of the assessee was claimed as exempt income u/s. 10(38) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceeding all the relavent supporting evidences viz. purchase bill, registered broker's contact note/bill, D-mat statement and bank statement etc. were filed. It was brought to the notice of the AO that all the transactions were made through bank account. However, the AO referring to the report by DGIT(Inv) and taking note of the unusual high price rise of the scrips did not accept the share transactions as genuine, and held that the share transactions as bogus and added the total sales consideration of Rs. 46,83,790/- to the income of the assessee denying the clam 5 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 of the assessee that income is exempt. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
7. We note that that during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2012-13 the assessee on 28-03-2012 & 29-03-2012 purchased 3000 equity shares of M/s. NCL Research and Financial services Ltd. (page 8&9 of paper book) through registered broker of Bombay Stock Exchange ( pages 8 to 18 of paper book). Later, 2350 shares were sold during the year resulting into long term capital gain of Rs. 38,19,923/-. Another long term capital gain of Rs. 8,63,866/- was earned during the year on sale of shares of M/s. Uno Industries Ltd. The facts leading to LTCG on this scrips sale was that assessee on 24-01-2012 purchased 80 shares of M/s. Pinacle Vintrade Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on which 7200 bonus shares (page 22 of paper book) were issued on 20-07-2012 making her holding at 7280 shares (page 24 of paper book). Later on as per scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the said company was merged with M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. and the assessee was issued 72800 shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. (page 26 of paper book). These shares were sold by the assessee on 07-03-2014 & 18-03-2014 for a consideration of Rs.9,63,866/- (page 27 of paper book) resulting into long term capital gain of Rs. 8,63,866/- (pages 19 to 28 of paper book). We note that the sales transactions of both scrips were done though the registered share broker M/s. Anand Rathi Securities Ltd. a corporate member of Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. We note that during the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee filed the following evidences to substantiate her claim viz. purchase bill; registered brokers contact note/ bill, De-mat statement and bank statement etc. From a perusal of the documents it reveals that the purchase and sales transactions were made through bank account and the shares were held in De Mat account and sale transaction was carried out through the registered share broker who was a corporate member of Bombay Stock Exchange.
8. We note that AO/Ld. CIT(A) have not appreciated that the transaction of sale of shares by the assessee was duly backed up by material/evidence including contract notes, de-mat statement, bank account reflecting transactions, the shares having been sold on the 6 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 online platform of the stock exchange and each trade of sale of shares were having unique trade number and trade time. It needs to be kept in mind that the stock exchange and SEBI are the statutory authorities appointed by the Govt. of the India to ensure that there is no rigging or manipulation. As stated earlier, the AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that these statutory agencies have alleged any stock manipulation by the assessee or the brokers or the company's scrip in question at the time when the assessee made the sale. The shares were sold on the date mentioned in the contract note at the prevailing market price duly recorded in the stock exchange.
9. We note that the coordinate benches of this Tribunal recent decisions have accepted the claim of the assessee in similar facts when assessee has supported its claim with evidence supporting the claims as done by the assessee in this case. We note that in Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO (ITA No. 19/Kol/2014)(AY 2005-06) (Dt. 02.12.2016), wherein it has been observed in similar case by the Tribunal as under: -
" We find that the similar issue had been adjudicated by the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sunita Khemka in ITA Nos. 714 to 718/Ko112011 dated 28.10.2015 and in the case of Income-Tax Officer vs Raj kumar Agarwal in ITA No. 1330 (Kol) of 2007 dated 10.08.2007 wherein it was held that when purchase and sale of shares were supported by proper contract notes, deliveries of shares were received through de-mat accounts maintained with various agencies, the shares were purchased and sold through recognized broker and the sale considerations were received by account payee cheques, the transactions cannot be treated as bogus and the income so disclosed was assessable as LTCG. We find that in the instant case, the addition has been made only on the basis of the suspicion that the difference in purchase and sale price of these shares is unusually high. The revenue had not brought any material on record to support its finding that there has been collusion/connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money."
10. We note that in similar facts the Tribunal took the same view -
1. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF, vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 41(3), ITA No. 1213/KOL/2016 dated 11/01/2017
2. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sunita Khemka in I T A Nos. 714 to 718/Kol/2011 dated 28.10.2015.
3. ITO vs. Rajkumar Agarwal in ITA No. 1330 (Kol) of 2007 dated 10.08.2007.
7 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15
4. Manish Kumar Baid & Anr. V. A.C.I.T. ITA No. 1236,1237/KoI/2017.
5. Kiran Kothari (HUF) vs. Income-Tax Officer Wd. 35(3) ITA No. 443/Kol/2017 dated 15.11.2017.
11. We note that 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 is exempt from income tax. All these observations we note are general in nature and not against the action of assessee or her broker. We note evidences/material/documents to prove the transactions which were produced by the assessee are not controverted by the revenue authorities. We note that no material purportedly collected from third parties and is referred to draw adverse inference against the assessee was confronted to the assesses and no opportunity of cross-examination of persons, on whose statements the revenue relies to draw adverse inference against the assessee was provided to the assessee. So, the addition based on a general report study of the investigation wing cannot be the sole basis of rejecting the claim of the assessee.
12. In this case, we note that the legal evidence produced by the assessee has been given no credence to by the AO/CIT(A) and they have been carried away by the general observations based on certain statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG, that have surfaced during investigations. There might by persons involved in the unscrupulous activity of price rigging etc. But it has to be established in each case, by the party alleging so. The chain of events and the live link of the assessee's action exposing her involvement in the scam should be brought out/unearthed. The allegation of AO implies that cash was paid by the assessee and in return the assessee received LTCG by way of cheque through Banking channels, which is income exempt from income tax. This allegation that cash had changed hands, has to be proved with evidence, by the revenue. Evidence gathered by the Director Investigation's office by way of unknown parties statements recorded which admittedly has been recorded behind the back of the assessee has been relied upon by the revenue to make any additions. When such actions are carried out, the AO has to ensure to give copies of the 8 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 adverse material/statement given to the assessee and allowed the assessee an opportunity of cross examination, if the AO is going to rely on any adverse statements of third party as evidence to draw adverse inference against the assessee. If any material or evidence is sought to be relied upon by the AO, he has to confront the assessee with such material. The claim of the assessee cannot be rejected based on mere conjectures unverified evidence under the pretentious garb of preponderance of human probabilities and theory of human behavior by the department.
13. It is well settled that evidence collected from third parties cannot be used against an assessee unless this evidence is put before him and he is given an opportunity to controvert the evidence. We note that neither the evidence based on which the DDIT report is prepared is not brought on record by the AO nor is it given to the assessee to rebut.
14. In our view, just the modus operandi, generalization, preponderance of human probabilities cannot be the only basis for rejecting the claim of the assessee in the light of documents filed by assessee to substantiate the transaction. 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 bogus transaction 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.
15. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions.
9 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 However, we do not find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), have brought out any part of the investigation wing report in which the assessee has been investigated and /or found to be a part of any arrangement for the purpose of generating bogus long term capital gains. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named that the assessee was in collusion with them. In absence of such finding how is it possible to link their wrong doings with the assessee. In fact, the investigation wing is a separate department which has not been assigned assessment work and has been delegated the work of only making investigation. The Act has vested widest powers on this wing. It is the duty of the investigation wing to conduct proper and detailed inquiry in any matter where there is allegation of tax evasion and after making proper inquiry and collecting proper evidences the matter should be sent to the assessment wing to assess the income as per law. We find no such action executed by investigation wing as against the assessee. In absence of any finding specifically against the assessee in the investigation wing report, the assessee cannot be held to be guilty or linked to the wrong acts of the persons investigated. In this case, in our view, the Assessing Officer at best could have considered the investigation report as a starting point of investigation. The report only informed the assessing officer that some persons may have misused the scrip for the purpose of collusive transaction. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to make inquiry from all concerned parties relating to the transaction and then to collect evidences that the transaction entered into by the assessee was also a collusive transaction. We, however, find that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. The Hon'ble Court held:
"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 10 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 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".
17. 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.
18. We now consider the various propositions of law laid down by the Courts of law. That cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice has been laid down in the following judgments:
a) AyaaubkhanNoorkhan Pathan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P .v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas TeaEstate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. KesoramCotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC708; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 876; Rachpal Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2448;Biecco 11 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 Lawrie and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v.Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131).
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 alteram partem.
28. The meaning of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause against an action proposed to be taken by the government, is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges, on the basis of which an inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so only when he is told what the charges against him are. He can therefore, do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that, the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against him. Unless the said statements are provided to the government servant, he will not be able to conduct an effective and useful cross-examination.
29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2009SC 1100, this Court held: Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses are not available for cross-examination or similar situation. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded to consider the issue on a technical plea, namely, no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant by such non-examination. If the basic principles of law have not been complied with or there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction of judicial review.
30. The aforesaid discussion makes it evident that, not only should the opportunity of cross- examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice."
b) Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II wherein it was held that:
"4. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the Assessee, and Mr. K.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue.
5. According to us, not allowing the Assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were 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 12 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 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.
6. As mentioned above, the Appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross- examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005[2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions.
7. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the show cause notice."
19. On similar facts where the revenue has alleged that the assessee has declared bogus LTCG, it was held as follows:
a) The CALCUTTAHIGH COURT in the case of BLB CABLES &CONDUCTORS[ITA No. 78 of2017] dated19.06.2018. The High Court held vide Para 4.1:
"............we find that all the transactions through the broker were duly recorded in the books of the assessee. The broker has also declared in its books of accounts and offered for taxation. In our view to hold a transaction as bogus, there has to be some concrete evidence where the transactions cannot be proved with the supportive evidence. Here in the case the transactions of the commodity exchanged have not only been explained but also substantiated from the confirmation of the party. Both the parties are confirming the transactions which have been duly supported with the books of accounts and bank transactions. The ld. AR has also submitted the board resolution for the trading of commodity transaction. The broker was expelled from the commodity exchange cannot be the criteria to hold the transaction as bogus. In view of above, we reverse the order of the lower authorities and allow the common grounds of assessee's appeal." [quoted verbatim] 13 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 This is essentially a finding of the Tribunal on fact. No material has been shown to us who would negate the Tribunal's finding that off market transactions are not prohibited. As regards veracity of the transactions, the Tribunal has come to its conclusion on analysis of relevant materials. That being the position, Tribunal having analyzed the set of facts in coming to its finding, we do not think there is any scope of interference with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed."
b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL[ITA No.292/JP/2017]order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide Page 9 Para 3:
"We hold that the addition made by the AO is merely based on suspicion and surmises without any cogent material to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee in support of the claim. Further, the AO has also failed to establish that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. Hence we delete the addition made by the AO on this account."
c)The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PREMPAL GANDHI[ITA- 95-2017(O&M)] dated18.01.2018 at vide Page 3 Para 4 held as under:
"..... The Assessing Officer in both the cases added the appreciation to the assessee's' income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessee's' income from undisclosed sources. In ITA-18-2017 also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very high, the shares were traded on the National Stock Exchange and the payments and receipts were routed through the bank. There was no evidence to indicate for instance that this was a closely held company and that the trading on the National Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner."
The Court also held the following vide Page 3 Para 5 the following:
"Question (iv) has been dealt with in detail by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Firstly, the documents on which the Assessing Officer relied upon in the appeal were not put to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) nevertheless considered them in detail and found that there was no co-relation between the amounts sought to be added and the entries in those documents. This was on an appreciation of facts. There is nothing to indicate that the same was perverse or irrational. Accordingly, no question of law arises."
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 14 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 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 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 15 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 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 ofthe ld AR with contrary material evidences on record and merely relied on theorders of the ld AO. We find that the allegation that the assessee and / orBrokers getting involved in price rigging of SOICL shares fails. It is also amatter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills,contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove thegenuineness 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 bonafide and genuine and therefore the ld AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) ofthe Act."
g) The BENCH "H"OF MUMBAIITAT in the caseof 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 RamkrishnaFincap 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)."16 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018
Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15
h)The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court inthe case ofVIVEK 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 I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows:
"The tribunal found that the chain of transaction entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. The assessee produced before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) the contract notes, details of his Demat account and, also, produced documents showing that all payments were received by the assessee through bank."
j) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Teju 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."
20. We note in the present case that the AO did not find any fault/infirmity in the document/supporting evidences filed by the assessee to substantiate its claim. The documents filed by the assessee are records of the transaction which happened in the platform of SEBI authorized Stock Exchange, which was carried out through authorized broker of Bombay Stock Exchange of scrips which were held in Demat account and consideration rising from the purchase/sale which were through the banking channel cannot 17 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 be held to be bogus, without the AO returning a finding that these documents filed by assessee are false, concocted or fabricated. Without doing so, based on a general report/study by the DIT (Inv.) that the scrips on which the assessee received LTCG cannot be held to be bogus. Here in this case the Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which we see does not come to the aid of Revenue. Here, in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court while adjudicating the action of Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) reversed SAT decision in respect of three traders and restored the penalty levied by the adjudicating authority of SEBI, whereas in respect of three brokers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the action of Securities Appellate Tribunal deleting the penalty levied against the brokers namely (i) India Bolt Securities Ltd., (ii) Angel Capital & Debt Market Ltd. and (iii) Prashant Jayantilal Patel. The Hon'ble Apex Court approved the view of SAT in respect of brokers by observing "As far as brokers are concerned, we are of the view that is hardly any evidence on their involvement so as to proceed against them for violation of Regulation 7A of the Broker Regulation. Merely because a broker facilitated a transaction, it cannot be said that there is violation of Regulation of SEBI has not provided any material to suggest negligence or connivance on the part of the brokers." However we note that in the case of traders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the penalty because the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the traders in the facts of that case were involved not only in synchronized trading; but also in trade reversals which indicated that the parties did not intended to transfer beneficial ownership and through these orchestrated transactions, intention of which was not regular trading, and also by this practice other investors have been excluded in participating in these trades. It was also noted from the facts of that case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the trade was not synchronizing , the traders placed it at unattractive prices which was also a strong indication that the traders intended to play with the market. Thus, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found as a matter of fact that the traders by their actions/transaction deprived other market players from full participation. The repeated reversals and predetermined arrangement to book profits and losses respectively made it clear that parties were not trading in normal sense and ordinary course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that by synchronization and rapid reverse trade done by traders, the price discovery itself 18 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 was affected. It was also found as a matter of fact that except the parties who have pre-fixed the price, nobody was in a position to participate in the trade. Thus Hon'ble Supreme Court held that these facts had an impact on the fairness, integrity and transparency of the stock market and these facts go on to show that traders indulged in the alleged transactions (specifically charged transactions spelled out by SEBI in those cases) tantamount, to violation of the regulations of the SEBI's (Prohibition of Fraudulent and unfair trade practice relating to Securities Market) in respect to traders therefore, in the aforesaid factual matrix, the traders were penalized. However, as stated earlier the decision of SAT to delete the penalty on the brokers was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so we note that the charges levelled against the traders in the facts of those cases indicated their hand in manipulating the market by various acts which have been mentioned (supra). So the Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the penalty on them, which is not the case before us. Here, the AO has not brought anything on record to show that assessee or the broker on instruction from assessee took part in or entered into transactions in scrips with the intention to artificially raise or depress the price and thereby automatically induced the innocent investors in the market to buy/sell their stock. It is not the case of the AO that assessee or broker as per instruction from assessee has manipulated the prices of the scrip. Even the market regular SEBI has not made any such specific finding in its report against the assessee. In any case, if the AO had any adverse material against the assessee, he was duty bound to furnish a copy to assessee and granted her an opportunity to rebut the same and also provided an opportunity to cross examine if the material adverse to assessee is used against the assessee to draw adverse inference as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of cases [supra].
21. We also note that the coordinate benches in the case of Gautam Pincha Vs. ITO, ITA No.s. 644 & 645/Kol/2018 dated 24.0.2018 have upheld the assessee's claim of LTCG on purchase and sale of shares of M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. for AY 2014- 15, as in the instant case before us. So respectfully following the aforesaid decision and also taking note of the documents filed before us (paper book pages 8 to 18) from which we note that assessee has discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction by 19 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 filing the contract note of Purchase (8 to 9 PB) through registered broker of Bombay Stock Exchange (M/s. Anand Rathi Securities Ltd. and the purchases having taken place through bank transaction (page 10 to 11PB) and sale of scrips is evidence by contract note of sale (page 12 to 16 PB) through registered broker of Bombay Stock Exchange (M/s. Anand Rathi Securities Ltd.) and transaction happened through banking transaction (page 17 to 18 of paper book). Since AO/Ld. CIT(A) could not find any fault or specific adverse materials against the assessee/broker/ or scrips of M/s. NCL, the addition u/s. 68 cannot be sustained. The addition based on a common/general report/study of DIT (Inv.) and there is nothing in the report specifically against the assessee, cannot be the basis for making the addition or draw adverse inference against the assessee so the action of AO/Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained and, therefore, the claim of exempt income on LTCG on sale of scrips of M/s. NCL has to be allowed and, therefore, the addition on this issue is directed to be deleted.
22. We note that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prakash Chand Bhutoria ITA No. 2394/Kol/2017 dated 27.06.2018 upheld the assessee's claim of LTCG on sale of shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. for AY 2014-15, as in the instant case before us so respectfully following the decision and also taking note of the documents filed before us (paper book page 19 to 31) from which we note that assessee has discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction of the purchase of shares by filing the share certificate along with share transfer advice of Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd (pages 19 to 21PB) and the purchases having taken place through bank transaction (page 23 PB) and later bonus share allotment letter (page 25PB) and bonus share certificate (page 24 PB) and thereafter by virtue of Amalgamation scheme allotment letter of M/s Unno Industries Ltd (page 26 PB) which were sold through registered broker of Bombay Stock Exchange (M/s. Anand Rathi Securities Ltd). and sale of scrips is evidence by contract note of sale (page 27 PB) and transaction happened through banking transaction (page 28 of paper book). Since AO/Ld. CIT(A) could not find any fault or specific adverse materials against the assessee/broker/ or scrips of M/s. NCL, the addition u/s. 68 cannot be sustained. The addition based on a common/general report of DIT (Inv.) and there is nothing in the report specifically against the assessee, cannot be the basis for making the addition or draw 20 ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 adverse inference against the assessee. So the action of AO/Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained and therefore, the claim of exempt income on LTCG on sale of scrips of M/s. NCL has to be allowed and, therefore, the addition on this issue is directed to be deleted.
23 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 12/12/2018
Sd/- Sd/-
(J. Sudhakar Reddy) (A. T. Varkey)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 12th December, 2018
Jd.(Sr.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1 Appellant - Smt. Minu Gupta, 132, Cotton Street, 1st floor, Kolkata-700 007.
2 Respondent - ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata.
3 CIT(A)-13, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)
4 CIT , Kolkata
5 DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)
/True Copy, By order,
Sr. Pvt. Secretary