2024 (3) TMI 1464 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - penny stock purchases - as alleged assessee has indulged in sale and purchase of penny stocks to obtain bogus gains/los s - HELD THAT - Test check whether the trade in penny stocks was delivery based assessee was asked to show the transaction of purchase and sale of shares of Exelon Infrastructure Ltd. in Financial Year 2011- 12 and corresponding entries of sale and purchase in Demat account of the assessee. On sample examination it was found that 2003 shares purchased by assessee on 31/10/2011 were duly credited in Demat account of the assessee on 02/11/2011. Similarly the transaction of purchase of 13000 shares of Exelon Infrastructure Ltd. on 01/11/2011 and sale of 2300 shares on same day of the said company was duly reflected in Demat account of the assessee. Thus from the documents on record it is evident that the assessee has indeed traded in shares alleged to be penny socks. It is not a case of bogus entries of losses to reduce tax liability. AO miserably failed to examine the transactions before coming to the conclusion and disallowing assessee s claim of business loss. It would be relevant to mention here that the assessee has suffered loss of Rs.9.65 crores from trading in shares out of which loss in trading of alleged penny stocks is Rs.1.98 cores. Thus the assessee has not only suffered loss in trading of penny stock alone. CIT(A) while examining the issue has given a finding on the business loss of the assessee from trading in penny stocks by primarily placing reliance on the decision of Swati Bajaj 2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT CIT(A) has failed to examine documents on record and peculiar facts of the case. Here it would be apposite to add that each case has to be decided on its facts. Merely for the reason that the assessee has traded in penny stocks would not mean that the assessee has indulged in bogus transactions. Indeed trading in penny stock scrips raises a red flag and such cases have to be dealt with extra caution and require deep investigation but that would not mean that all case of penny stocks have to decided in a particular manner with a pre-determined notion. AO has to make out a case for addition/disallowance after detailed examination and correct appreciation of documents on record. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the reopening of the assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid and justified;

(b) Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the business loss claimed by the assessee on trading in shares, particularly in penny stocks, on the ground that such losses/gains were bogus or accommodation entries;

(c) Whether the Assessing Officer correctly applied the principles of law and fact in treating the transactions as long term capital gain/short term capital loss instead of business loss from trading in shares;

(d) The adequacy and correctness of the evidence furnished by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the trading transactions in penny stocks and the resultant business loss;

(e) The correctness of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order relying on precedent to uphold the disallowance of loss on penny stock trading without adequately considering the facts and evidence.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 148

The reopening of the assessment was initiated by the Assessing Officer on the basis that the assessee allegedly obtained bogus gains/losses from trading in penny stocks. However, the assessee did not advance any submissions challenging the validity of the reopening before the Tribunal, and hence, this issue was kept open for the present stage. The Tribunal did not delve into the legal framework or precedents concerning reopening validity in this judgment.

(b) Treatment of Business Loss Claimed on Trading in Penny Stocks

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income Tax Act distinguishes between capital gains and business income/loss. Losses from share trading can be either business losses or capital losses depending on the nature of transactions. The Assessing Officer must correctly classify the nature of income or loss and apply relevant provisions accordingly. Precedents caution against treating all penny stock transactions as bogus without proper evidence and emphasize the need for detailed examination.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment with a preconceived notion that the transactions were accommodation entries resulting in bogus long term capital gains and short term capital losses. The assessment order repeatedly referred to capital gains/losses but failed to consider that the assessee had claimed business loss from trading in shares. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not properly appreciate the evidence furnished by the assessee to substantiate the business loss claim.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee furnished detailed transaction records for the Financial Year 2011-12, including purchase and sale details of shares, broker confirmation, ledger accounts, Demat account statements, and bank statements showing payments made through a running account with the broker. Sample verification of transactions in Exelon Infrastructure Ltd. shares confirmed delivery-based trading with shares credited and debited in the Demat account corresponding to purchase and sale dates. The assessee's books reflected a net loss of approximately Rs. 9.65 crores from share trading, including Rs. 1.98 crores loss from alleged penny stocks, alongside positive incomes from other sources like increase in stocks and Futures & Options, resulting in a net revenue figure properly reflected in the Profit & Loss account.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the transactions and evidence before concluding that the losses were bogus. The evidence demonstrated genuine delivery-based trading and actual payments, negating the claim of accommodation entries or bogus transactions. The Tribunal stressed that the presence of penny stocks alone cannot lead to a presumption of bogus transactions without detailed investigation and appreciation of facts.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's argument rested on the premise that trading in penny stocks is a red flag and that the assessee's losses were claimed to reduce tax liability illegitimately. The Tribunal acknowledged that penny stock trading raises suspicion but held that suspicion alone cannot substitute for evidence. It criticized the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct a thorough examination and reliance on a pre-determined notion. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) relied on a precedent without adequately considering the facts and documents specific to the case.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of business loss was unjustified and that the assessee had successfully substantiated the genuineness of the trading transactions and resultant losses. The appeal was allowed on this ground.

(c) Classification of Transactions as Capital Gains vs. Business Loss

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer repeatedly referred to long term capital gain and short term capital loss, whereas the assessee had claimed business loss from trading in shares. This misclassification led to flawed reasoning and disallowance. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lost sight of the nature of the claim and failed to apply the correct legal framework distinguishing business income/loss from capital gains/losses.

(d) Adequacy of Evidence to Substantiate Trading Transactions

The assessee submitted comprehensive evidence including purchase and sale details, broker confirmations, Demat account statements, ledger accounts, and bank statements. The Tribunal found the evidence credible and sufficient to establish that the transactions were delivery-based, genuine, and involved actual payments. The sample verification of transactions in Exelon Infrastructure Ltd. shares corroborated the genuineness. The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer for ignoring this evidence and making conclusions based on assumptions.

(e) Reliance on Precedent by CIT(A) and Failure to Examine Facts

The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance primarily relying on a decision in a different case involving penny stock trading. The Tribunal criticized this approach, emphasizing that each case must be decided on its own facts and that mere trading in penny stocks does not automatically imply bogus transactions. The Tribunal underscored the need for detailed examination and proper appreciation of evidence before making adverse findings. It held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the peculiar facts and documents of the present case, leading to an erroneous conclusion.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The Assessing Officer has framed the assessment with a pre-determined notion that it is a case of accommodation entries in the nature of long term capital gain /short term capital loss. The Assessing Officer lost sight of the fact that he is dealing with assessee's assessment where the assessee has claimed business loss from sale of shares alleged to be penny stocks."

"From the documents on record it is evident that the assessee has indeed traded in shares alleged to be penny stocks. It is not a case of bogus entries of losses to reduce tax liability. The Assessing Officer miserably failed to examine the transactions before coming to the conclusion and disallowing assessee's claim of business loss."

"Merely for the reason that the assessee has traded in penny stocks would not mean that the assessee has indulged in bogus transactions. Indeed trading in penny stock scrips raises a red flag and such cases have to be dealt with extra caution and require deep investigation, but that would not mean that all case of penny stocks have to decided in a particular manner with a pre-determined notion."

"The Assessing Officer has to make out a case for addition/disallowance after detailed examination and correct appreciation of documents on record."

The Tribunal established the core principle that suspicion arising from trading in penny stocks cannot substitute for evidence and that genuine business losses from share trading must be recognized if substantiated by credible evidence. The final determination was to allow the appeal on merits, holding that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of business loss was unjustified and not based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence. The issue regarding validity of reopening was left open for future adjudication.