2023 (3) TMI 360 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained credit - Penny stock purchases - report of Dy. Director (Inv.) Kolkata observed that M/s. S.S. Securities is carrying out huge bank transactions vide RTGS and high value cheques and based on the pattern of the transactions location of business source of funds and further utilization of funds by these group of entities including M/s. S.S. Securities - HELD THAT - When the enquiry was conducted by ld. AO during FY 2017-18 M/s. S.S. Securities had already surrendered the registration and not carrying out business activity. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the purchases of the assessee are bogus or non-genuine. Assessee made legitimate purchases in the preceding year and the said purchases were held as investments and their genuineness is not doubted by the Revenue authorities and during the year under consideration some of the investments have been sold through a broker registered with the Guwahati Stock Exchange Ltd. and the said transaction has been carried out through stock exchange and sale consideration has been received through banking channel via registered broker and therefore we do not find any reason to dispute the genuineness identity and creditworthiness of the share broker at the point of time when transaction was carried out. Thus no infirmity is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A) deleting the alleged addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of quashing the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of the addition/disallowance of Rs. 2,31,35,000/- claimed by the assessee.
3. Assessment of the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the assessee and the transactions involved.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of Quashing the Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144
The Revenue contested the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to quash the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) quashed the order on the grounds that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the legitimacy of the transactions and the existence of the broker, M/s. S.S. Securities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct adequate independent inquiries to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee.

Issue 2: Deletion of the Addition/Disallowance of Rs. 2,31,35,000/-
The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,31,35,000/- made by the AO, who had treated the amount as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act. The AO based this addition on a report from the Deputy Director (Investigation), Kolkata, which suggested that M/s. S.S. Securities was a paper entity. However, the Tribunal noted that M/s. S.S. Securities was registered with the Guwahati Stock Exchange at the time of the transactions and that the payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal found no reason to dispute the genuineness of the transactions and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.

Issue 3: Assessment of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness
The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of M/s. S.S. Securities and the transactions. The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, including the audited financial statements, bank statements, and the registration details of M/s. S.S. Securities with the Guwahati Stock Exchange. The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct thorough inquiries to verify the evidence and relied heavily on the investigation report without independent verification. The Tribunal concluded that the transactions were genuine and the broker's identity and creditworthiness were established at the time of the transactions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order and delete the addition of Rs. 2,31,35,000/-. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of thorough inquiries by the AO and the sufficiency of the documentary evidence provided by the assessee to prove the legitimacy of the transactions and the existence of the broker.