Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20.7 The Revenue has also questioned the current financial he alth of the company so as to declare it a bogus sham penny stock company. Th e s a i d i n s i n u a t i o n i s m i s c h i e v o u s . There can be many reasons for the rise and fall in the fortunes of companies existing in dynamic ever changing business economic environments. Thus , even if the fi nanc ial he alth of M/s CCL International Ltd. at the present time may not be very promising, however, this fact by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that its existence and functioning was a sham. The pre sump tion that in future, the company is incapable of doing well has no rationale basis. The historical rise and fall of businesses is replete with stories of penny ITA 110 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 stock companies sometimes rising upto becoming the multi baggers. Investment in Penny Stock companies is risk ridden and the investment depends on the risk appetite or foolish op timism of the in vestor b ut the argu me nt that ne cessarily these are sham companies is based on mere suspicions. It is a fact that many of penny stock companies may fall, however, this fact by itself does not lay down the law that trading in penny stock companies is banned. Many a penny stock company can become a big player if its strategie s and economic environments align. Referring exclusively to the blue chip stocks for allaying the unsupported doubts and suspicions of the doubtsayers it may be highlighted that an impartial sturdy of the rise and fall of some well established companies today would show that these were possibly penny stock companies. Reference may be made to the scrip of Eicher Motors whose share price as on 31 August, 2022 is hovering at Rs. 3411/-, it would be an eye opener to notice that in June,1998 it was trading at Rs.9/-. Similarly, the share price of Kotak Mahindra Bank ranging currently in the range of Rs. 1902/-, was trading in September,2003 at Rs.10/- and sometimes even going as low as Rs.1.8. Similarly, Lupin, who is trading at Rs.660/- was trading at Rs.2/- about two decades ago. Bajaj Finance today trading at Rs.7181/- was ranging between Rs.34/- or so and for ITA 110 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 almost half a decade in early 2000 and infact going much l owe r. Titan another wel l estab lishe d scr ip trad in g tod ay at Rs.2622/- in 2000 was trading at Rs.2.6 and this is talking o n l y o f b l u e c h i p c o m p a n i e s (http://groww.in/blog/pe nny-stocks- that-be came -m ultibagge r-stocks) Thus, the presumption drawn by the Revenue that merely because a particular company at a particular point of time is not doing well and hence, it ne cess ar ily is a s ham company is an argu me nt without any basis. The fact re main s that the said c ompany is s till l isted on the Stock Exchange is a fact on record. The fact that after the sale, the price of the share rose substantially is not disputed. However, its relevance for deciding whether the company was bogus or the transactions of the assessee were sham is not established. Th e s a l e a t t h e S t o c k E x c h a n g e i s a fact not in dispute. In the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj at page 17 of the decision it can be noticed that SEBI had initiated an enquiry in the actions of the said company/companies wherein there may be other companies apart from Surabhi Chemicals but M/s CCL International Ltd. was not involved. Moreover, the share was noticed to be thinly traded and some transactions therein were off the marked transactions. In the facts of the present case, there is no aspersion cast by SEBI on the functioning of M/s CCL ITA 110 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 In ternational Ltd. Thus, the subsequent rise in i ts price is not relevant as it in no way establishes that the shares sold on the Stock Exchange on the specific dates was a bogus transaction. It goe s without saying that with the benefit of a hind sight everyone can so arrange their affairs including financial affairs to ensure that the best and most suitable outc ome desire d is achieved . Howeve r, actions are always made in the present and it is impossible to have a clear picture of what consequences the actions made in the present will result in the future. The asse ssee having sold the shares on the dates in ignorance of the future possible r i s e i n t h e share price of the said share which we now see at best can illustra te that ideally the assessee should have waited and by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be a case leading to the conclusion that the transaction was manipulated or bogus. No one is capable of predicting the future Market Sentiment. The sale of the shares made by the asse ssee through the Stock Exchange through the D-Mat account held with the Broker M/s Master Capital Services Ltd. who has confirmed t h e transactions; wherein banking transactions also reflect the same position, we find are facts which cannot be easily brushed aside on the basis of suspicions and statements of some broker who may have had his own reasons to dump his clients for unscrupulous criminal reasons. No doubt the ITA 110 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 banking transactions by itself, we agree, do not grant a legitimacy to the genuineness of the claim, however, the fact remains that these are events supported by sale of shares at the Stock Exchange through the D-Mat account coupled with the fact that there is no evidence on record that the company was ever barred from trading on the Stock Exchange or penalized for entering or entertaining shady transactions, the company e ven today continues to trade on the Stock Exchange. No violation by SEBI or under Company Law qua the said company has been brought on record by the Revenue. Th us, in the absen ce of any such fact or e vidence, small cap companies/penny stock companies cannot by one stroke be painted to be companies whose share prices ne cessarily are capable of being manipulated. It would act as a death blow to the entrepreneurial spirit of the country. Every small cap company/penny stock company enters the business environment with the aspiration to become a multi bagger blue chip company someday. In the business world, the discussions on dreams and aspirations of pe nny stock companies rising up to become mid cap and large cap companies are galore. We find no good basis to entertain the unsubstantiated suspicion that all smallcap companies/penny stock companies are to be treated to be tainted pariahs and hence, the bonafide transactions entered ITA 110 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 into by the public on this count itself are to be treated as sham manipulated transactions le ading to disallowance of their gains or losses. Such an action would amount to laying down the law that transactions only in Blue Chip, Large Cap companies only are to be accepted. The creation of such an environme nt by a judicial order where a headstart is given only to Blue Chip established companies cannot be d one. Th is i s not the legi sl ative i nte nt also. The bu siness environment in the country is available and enabled for every entrepreneurial venture. Th e environment so en ab led is not only for the benefit of the blue bloode d pedigreed companies but also exists for rank and mature/beginners. These first time businessmen/women also have the right to participate in the economic activity of the country for Build India initiative. Th e y may not be in a position to have access to huge capital but cannot be thrown out of the playing field causing loss to the economy by depriving itself of the fresh business acumen/intellect discounted solely on the count that they start their business ventures as penny stock companies. Th e i r a n i m a l s p i r i t t o p r o v i d e n e w b l o o d t o the economy cannot be dismissed by one stroke. The economy ensures a level playing field for all players whether penny stock, mid cap or large cap. No doubt the ventures are high risk. It is also fair to be cautioned by the fact that ITA 110 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 dubious players may also enter the field. We are aware of the manipulating strategies of 'Pump and Dump" which are circulated by wily players where a dubious share is amped up in the business circles of print and media so that an incorrect sentiment of future rise in it is played out. Once the prices rise on account of trusting naïve Investors, the manipulators dump their shares thereby causing loss to the ignorant investors. Hence investment in penny stock companies is a risk. For addressing dubious manipulative actions we have Market Regulators like SEBI and Company Law Board. Th e Indian economy on the rise cannot be allowed to be tamped down by these suspicions of the Revenue. Robust evidence has to be brought on record to address the issue. In the facts of the present case, there is no allegation of any Regulatory Authority to show that trading in this specific Stock was barred or the company was delisted. We find that suspicions entertained by the Revenue cannot be the basis of unsettling the valid order. 2 0 .8 We have also given our serious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue namely that the assessee has frequently used National Stock Exchange (NSE) instead of BSE where the company was listed and traded. The ld. CI T-D R p oin tin g fr om the rep lies of the ITA 110 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 asse ssee i tsel f be fore the Tax Au thor ities has p ointed out this frequent use r. We have seen that the counsel also pointed out that the assessee has also used BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) at many places. The argu ment has also been advanced on behalf of the assessee that the user of NSE instead of BSE at times was used by mistake and only to highlight the fact that sale was made through the requisite Stock Exchange. The l d. AR has c andidly agre ed that th is share was never available on the National Stock Exchange and it has only been available on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the assessee has sold its shares on the specific dates on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Our attention has also been invited to the specific Contract Notes to show that the sale of the specific share was through the Bombay Stock Exchange. Accordingly, we find that on account of this repeated bonafide inadvertent repeated mistake of the assessee in referring to the transactions through the Stock Exchange i.e. Bombay Stock Exchange, the relevant facts are not eroded. The assessee inadvertently has used NSE multiple times. Th is mi stake con si deri ng the fact th at the share trading of the specific company is always on the Bombay Stock Exchange is supported by the Contract Notes made available before us, we find that nothing much turns on this.