Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The assessee had sold the shares on 05.08.2013 5000 shares at the value of Rs.820/- per share and paid STT and received a consideration of Rs.40,82,079/- which the assessee received by account payee cheque which is reflected in page 21 of the paper book received on 24.08.2013. Like wise, the other sale transactions are reflected from pages 8 to 17 of the paper book for different rates from Rs. 845/- per share, Rs.865/- per share, Rs.920/- per share, Rs.921/- per share etc. and the assessee has received the said consideration through account payee cheque. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that when a show cause notice was given by the AO on 09.12.2016 wherein the assessee was asked to explain why the sale consideration of Rs.2,16,49,202/- shall not be added back u/s. 68 of the Act as well as Madhu Killa. AY 2014-15 Rs.10,82,460/- being 5% of the said sum be added u/s. 69C of the Act, the assessee promptly replied to it. The AO acknowledges that the assessee had replied vide letter dated 22.12.2016 which the AO has stated to have been placed on record. However, it was brought to our notice that the AO has not made any adverse finding in respect to the submissions made by the assessee in justifying the LTCG claim. It was brought to our notice that no attempt has been made by the AO to issue summons u/s. 131 or 133(6) of the Act to any of the parties involved in all these transactions to record any adverse inference against the assessee, and without doing so, the AO has simply concluded on the basis of the presumption and assumption and circumstantial evidence and on preponderance of probabilities has debunked the entire evidence submitted before the AO to saddle the entire sale consideration and to allege commission given @ 5% which comes to Rs.10,82,460/- against the assessee Thus we note that the assessee had furnished all primary evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, de Mat statements and bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transaction relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. By adducing these evidences, the assessee had discharged the onus on her to prove the genuineness of the transaction which yielded her LTCG. Once the assessee had discharged her onus, then the onus shifted to the shoulders of AO then the AO has to examine the veracity of the documents produced by the assessee and if it is found to be correct and valid then in all fairness the AO should accept the claim of LTCG. In case if the AO on verification finds that the documents produced by the assessee is false or fabricated, then the AO should bring his adverse findings to the notice of the assessee and confront her with the adverse material/findings. Then again the onus will shift to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Here, in the present case is concerned, the AO after going through the documents, failed to return a finding that documents produced by assessee to substantiate the yield of LTCG was false or fabricated. The facts of the case as discussed, and the evidence adduced by the assessee, support that the transaction made by the assessee through registered stock broker through Bombay Stock Exchange, after remitting STT and all payments were transacted through bank and the shares were held in De mat account, has to be accepted in the absence of any other material to suggest an adverse view. The AO/Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting legally admissible evidence and wrongly took adverse view Madhu Killa. AY 2014-15 against the claim of assessee based on surmises, suspicion and conjecture. This action of AO/Ld. CIT(A) is akin to convert "Proof into no proof." We note that AO while describing the modus operandi adopted by unscrupulous elements in the financial markets has made a vague statement that some accommodation entry provider has admitted that M/s. NFGL also indulged in wrong practices, however, we sought the Ld. DR's help to throw some light on this specific allegation made by the AO. However, other than the bald statement, nothing adverse could be found against the shares of M/s. NFGL. Even if for argument sake if there was such an adverse admission made by an accommodation provider against M/s. NFGL, then the AO in all fairness had to confront the assessee with the adverse material and given an opportunity to the assessee to meet it and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to explain it; and in case the assessee desires, she should have been allowed to cross examine the accommodation provider or else the adverse material cannot be acted upon to draw adverse inference against the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 62 Taxman.com 3. It should be kept in mind that assessee cannot be kept in dark as to the material against her and it has to be given to the assessee if AO proposes to use it against the assessee and these are the basic natural justice principles the AO has to keep in mind while framing an assessment. Though AO/Ld. CIT(A) have been swayed by the report of SEBI/Investigation Wing of the department, both the authorities could not point out what was the role of the assessee in any wrong doing which is prohibited by law. We note that neither the purported adverse reports relied on by the AO has been brought on record nor is there any reference to any finding of such report which directly accuses the assessee in any wrongful actions. 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. We note that neither any investigation were carried out against the assessee, nor against the brokers to whom the assessee dealt with or the companies in which the assessee dealt with the purchase and sale of shares in question were done by the AO. The transaction in question and the fact that the shares in question were quoted and transaction happened on the floor of the stock exchange in public view which action has not been interdicted by the securities watchdog SEBI. In such a scenario, to paint the entire share transaction of M/s. NFGL which yielded high Madhu Killa. AY 2014-15 capital gain as bogus is not correct without materials to support such an adverse finding. We note in the light of the aforesaid relevant evidences, the action of the AO and CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances and human conduct and preponderance of probability against the assessee. For that we rely on the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) for this proposition. The various facets of the contention of the ld. AR(supra), to rope in the assessee and for drawing adverse inferences, which remain unproved based on the evidence available on record are not reiterated for the sake of brevity.