Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. On the other hand, Ld. Dr relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the entire transaction of sale is not only doubtful and dubious, because while the share has been sold @ Rs. 110/- per share when in the stock exchange quoted price of Rs. 1.02. This fact coupled with the inquiry by the AO that the letter sent by him returned unserved. Thus, it is a clear cut case of bogus transaction.

9. Here in this case, the shares have been purchased @ Rs. 110/- per share in the year 2011 and it has been sold after two years exactly at the same rate. Once the purchase of shares have been accepted and duly disclosed in the books of accounts in the early years which is also evident from the physical certificate of the shares; and then how the sale of very same shares at the same rate can be held to be bogus. There is no information or material on record that the purchaser who has bought the shares has denied the transaction or there was any inquiry in the case of purchaser that why he has paid the sale price of the shares at the same rate of subscription when the listed price on the date of sale was Rs. 1.02/-. The apparent transaction fully supported by documentary evidences cannot be disbelieved merely on some hypothetical premise that why someone will buy a share at such a low price. There is no gain which has accrued to the assessee nor there any big loss, except for minor cost of indexation in computation of capital gains. We agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel that merely because the speed post sent by the AO to the purchaser company could not be served that does not mean said company is a non entity or nonexistent especially when under the statutory record and the records of Registrar of companies it was still active and was complying with all the statutory requirements under the Companies Act. The bank statement clearly reveals that the money has been received through RTGS from the bank account of the purchaser and duly confirmed by the purchaser company who has given confirmation letter filed before the AO and also placed before us. Apart from that, the sale bill and the copy of share certificates clearly show that the shares which were possessed by the assessee had duly been sold to the said party and it is not the case of the AO that these shares are still lying with the assessee. Apparently, without any adverse material or inquiry on record that purchaser is non genuine or purchaser has stated anything against the assessee or it has been found in any of the inquiry that the transaction is not genuine. Prima facie there has to be some kind of benefit to the assessee in such dubious transaction or there is some information that any unaccounted money has been converted into sale transaction and is appearing as credit in the books of assessee where such allegations are made against the assessee. If at all there is any loss then it could be in case of purchaser in this case and not the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any justifiable reason for confirming the addition consequently the same is directed to be deleted.