Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the analysis against the appellants had not been done correctly for the reasons stated hereunder.

10. In the first instance, we find that the AO has found that there is a connection between each of the entities on the basis of a table shown in para 5 of the impugned order. A perusal of the table shown in the para 5 of the impugned order shows that the connection has been established between 56 entities whereas the show cause notice was issued to 35 entities. In our opinion, a connection has to be drawn between the 35 entities only and not against the 56 entities in as much as the charge is one of synchronised trades and reversal trades and if one of the entities who is not charged in the show cause notice is a link for synchronised trading then that charge cannot be proved.

11. Further, we find that in the case of Mr. Sunil Bhandari the connection is off market transfer with self. No connection has been established of this appellant with any other entities. In case of Mr. Kaushik Mehta, the connection has been established on the basis of off market transfer with self and one noticee no.6 Mr. Vipul Hiralal Shah and in the case of CGF Mercantile the connection has been established on the basis of off market transfer with self and with noticee no.9 Mr. Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Parmar and one Mr. Samir Sureshchandra Shah who is not a noticee. Thus, we are not satisfied with the findings that the appellants are connected with the other parties. We are of the opinion that a connection is required to be established between the appellant and the counter party in the case of synchronised trading which has to be established with the 35 entities. In the case of CGF Mercantile we find that the Company is connected with Mr. Bharatkumar Parmar. If certain trades are executed by the CGF Company which are synchronised then the onus is upon the AO to first prove the connection with the synchronised counter party.

12. We also find that the AO has taken into consideration the total trades of 56 entities and the percentage of the buy trades of the 56 entities and has also taken into consideration the percentage of transfer of the 56 entities which in our opinion would be different and distinct in the volume and percentage of the trades executed by the 35 entities. Therefore, such comparison is odious.

13. The common charge against the three appellants is synchronised trades and, in the case of CGF Mercantile the additional charge is of reversal and self trades. In the case of Mr. Sunil Bhandari the synchronised trades is 2972 buy orders. The contention of the appellant is that he had executed 5000 buy orders which matched with ten entities and the charge is only in relation to synchronised trading with one entity totalling 2972 shares which had a trade percentage of 0.01 percentage against the total volume which is too miniscule to influence the market or could amount to manipulation in the price. In the case of CGF Mercantile total buy orders were 1918 shares which also had a total percentage of volume of 0.01% which is also being miniscule.

14. In this regard, namely, synchronised trading we find from the impugned record that the charge against Mr. Ashok Kumar was that there were 1,25,868 synchronised trades and in the case of Mr. Narendra Pawar there were 1,31,439 and in the case of Mr. Kochale Santosh there were 1,24,530 synchronised trades. These entities have been let off whereas the appellant Mr. Sunil Bhandari traded 2972, CGF Mercantile 1918 and Mr. Kaushik 30,000 shares whose percentage is less than 0.01 percent of the total trades have been charged for synchronised trades.