2024 (2) TMI 1555 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - sale proceeds of shares of alleged penny stock company - also addition u/s 69C towards estimated expenses incurred in procuring bogus long term capital gains - HELD THAT - AO has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging and further the AO did not find fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee. As noticed earlier that the AO has assessed the Sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Purchase of shares made in an earlier year has been accepted by the revenue. The sale of shares has taken place in the online platform of the Stock exchange and the sale consideration has been received through the stock broker in banking channels. Hence in the facts of the case the sale consideration cannot be considered to be unexplained cash credit in terms of sec. 68 of the Act. Since we have held that the sale transactions of shares cannot be doubted with the addition made by the AO with regard to estimated commission expenses is also liable to be deleted. Thus Sale consideration received on sale of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the long term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be doubted with. Hence the addition relating to estimated commission expenses is also liable to be deleted. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned additions made by him. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the genuineness of long-term capital gains declared by the assessee from the sale of shares of an alleged penny stock company, the validity of additions made under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, and the propriety of reopening the assessment. Specifically, the issues are:

(a) Whether the long-term capital gains declared by the assessee from the sale of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd are genuine or are bogus, fabricated to evade tax.

(b) Whether the sale consideration received can be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

(c) Whether the estimated commission expenses incurred in procuring the alleged bogus capital gains can be added under section 69C.

(d) Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 148 was valid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Genuineness of Long-Term Capital Gains from Sale of Penny Stock Shares

The legal framework involves the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly section 10(38) which exempts long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of listed shares subject to payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT). The Assessing Officer (AO) relied heavily on a report from the Income Tax Department's Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which alleged manipulation of share prices of penny stock companies, including Sunrise Asian Ltd, to generate bogus capital gains. The AO observed abnormal price movements post suspension revocation, identified "exit providers" who allegedly manipulated prices, and noted that one such broker confessed to providing accommodation entries.

However, the AO did not find any direct evidence connecting the assessee with these manipulative practices. The assessee had purchased shares through legitimate banking channels, received shares pursuant to a court-approved merger, held shares in dematerialized form, and sold them on the stock exchange with consideration received through banking channels. The AO also recorded a statement from the assessee under section 131 but found no adverse material therein. The AO's adverse conclusion was drawn mainly because the assessee could not identify a market advisor or demonstrate detailed knowledge of the penny stock company's financials.

The assessee challenged the AO's reliance on a generalized investigation report without specific evidence implicating her transactions. The assessee also contended that the broker through whom she sold shares was not among those identified as "exit providers" and that neither she nor her broker was subject to any SEBI investigation.

The Tribunal examined precedents including decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and coordinate benches of the ITAT which emphasize that additions cannot be made on mere suspicion, surmises, or generalized reports without concrete evidence linking the assessee to manipulative schemes. The Tribunal referred to judgments holding that when purchase and sale transactions are reflected in the demat account, executed through recognized stock exchanges and brokers, and consideration is routed through banking channels with STT paid, the transactions cannot be presumed bogus without cogent evidence.

The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to bring on record any material establishing that the assessee was part of the group involved in price rigging or manipulation. The assessee's transactions were solitary and not part of a pattern of suspicious trading. The Tribunal relied on several decisions where similar additions were deleted due to lack of evidence connecting the assessee to price manipulation or sham transactions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the long-term capital gains declared by the assessee are genuine and not a colorable device to evade tax.

2. Treatment of Sale Consideration as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act pertains to unexplained cash credits. The AO treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1.96 crores as unexplained cash credit, rejecting the exemption claimed under section 10(38). However, the Tribunal observed that the purchase of shares was accepted by the revenue in an earlier year, and the sale took place on a recognized stock exchange platform with consideration received through banking channels. The AO did not find any defect in the documents evidencing the sale transactions.

Precedents cited by the Tribunal hold that when transactions are genuine, evidenced by contract notes, demat account entries, and banking channel payments, the sale consideration cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal found no basis to treat the sale consideration as unexplained cash credit under section 68.

3. Addition of Estimated Commission Expenses under Section 69C

The AO estimated commission expenses at 2% of the sale consideration, treating it as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, on the premise that such expenses must have been incurred to procure the bogus capital gains. Since the Tribunal held the capital gains genuine, it followed that the addition under section 69C was also unwarranted. The Tribunal accordingly deleted the addition relating to estimated commission expenses.

4. Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 148

The assessee challenged the validity of reopening the assessment. However, since the Tribunal decided the substantive issues in favor of the assessee, it held the question of reopening to be academic and left it open.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The AO and Revenue Department argued that the financials of the company did not justify the steep rise in share prices, and the assessee lacked knowledge of the share market and the company's activities, indicating the transactions were not genuine. They relied on the investigation report, statements of "exit providers," and judicial precedents supporting the addition of unexplained income on suspicion of bogus transactions.

The assessee countered by emphasizing the absence of any direct evidence implicating her in price manipulation, the legitimacy of transactions evidenced by banking channel payments and demat account entries, and the lack of any SEBI inquiry against her or her broker. The assessee also highlighted the procedural lapse in denying cross-examination of witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the AO's case, contending this violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal critically analyzed both sides, giving primacy to the evidentiary material and established legal principles that additions cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or generalized reports without specific incriminating evidence. The Tribunal accorded weight to precedents underscoring the necessity of concrete proof before disallowing exemption claims and making additions under sections 68 and 69C.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal held that:

"The investigation report prepared by Investigation wing, Kolkatta is a generalized report with regard to the modus operandi adopted in manipulation of prices of certain shares and generation of bogus capital gains. The AO has placed reliance on the said report without bringing any material on record to show that the transactions entered by the assessee were found to be a part of manipulated transactions."

"The assessee has purchased these shares by paying consideration through banking channels, shares were allotted pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation approved by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, shares were dematerialized and kept in Demat account, sold through stock exchange platform and sale consideration received through banking channels. The AO himself has not found any defect/deficiencies in the evidences furnished by the assessee with regard to purchase and sale of shares."

"No addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures." (citing Supreme Court precedents)

"The sale consideration received on sale of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the long term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be doubted with. Hence the addition relating to estimated commission expenses is also liable to be deleted."

The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that the burden lies on the revenue to prove that the apparent transactions are not genuine and that the assessee's claim cannot be rejected on vague or generalized allegations. It emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, banking channel payments, demat account entries, and the absence of any regulatory action against the assessee or her broker in establishing the genuineness of share transactions and capital gains.

On the issue of reopening, the Tribunal left the question open as the substantive grounds were decided in favor of the assessee.