2025 (4) TMI 87 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made u/s 68 - denying exemption claimed u/s 10(38) for the sale proceeds of listed equity shares alleged as penny stock - addition u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure towards commission estimated @ 2% on the sale proceeds of the said alleged scrip - HELD THAT - We also take note of the decision of Balkrisna Gajanan Thopte for Assessment Year 2014-15 2024 (2) TMI 881 - ITAT MUMBAI which also dealt with identical scrip of SRK Industries Ltd. deleting the addition made of similar account both u/s. 68 and 69C We delete the addition made u/s 68 towards proceeds of sale of listed shares of SRK Industries Ltd. which gave rise to Long Term Capital Gain on the said sale claimed exempt by the assessee u/s 10(38). Accordingly grounds taken by the assessee in this respect are allowed. Addition made on estimate basis towards commission for arranging alleged artificial capital gains @ 2% is consequential to the addition made towards receipt of sale proceeds of alleged penny stock. Since we have deleted the said addition towards sale proceeds of alleged penny stock in terms of above stated observations and findings this consequential addition of commission has no foundation to stand. Accordingly the same is deleted. Grounds taken by the assessee in this respect are allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this judgment were:

Whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, denying exemption claimed under section 10(38) for the sale proceeds of equity shares of SRK Industries Ltd., was justified.
Whether the addition under section 69C for unexplained expenditure towards commission estimated at 2% on the sale proceeds was valid.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Addition under Section 68 and Denial of Exemption under Section 10(38)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act pertains to unexplained cash credits, while Section 10(38) provides an exemption for long-term capital gains from the sale of equity shares listed on a recognized stock exchange. The court referred to precedents like CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agrawal and PCIT v. Krishna Devi, which emphasize the importance of documentary evidence in establishing the genuineness of transactions.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided comprehensive documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, demat account statements, and bank statements, to support the legitimacy of the transactions. The court found that the Assessing Officer's conclusions were based on assumptions and lacked substantive evidence to prove the transactions were bogus.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted various documents, such as purchase invoices, demat account statements, and bank statements, which were not disputed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the transactions were conducted through recognized stock exchanges and involved registered brokers, with payments made via banking channels.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from relevant case law, emphasizing that the burden of proof shifts to the Revenue once the assessee provides documentary evidence. The Tribunal found no discrepancies in the evidence provided by the assessee and noted that the Revenue failed to bring any substantive material to contradict the assessee's claims.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the transactions were part of a scheme to provide accommodation entries, but the Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of any adverse findings from SEBI or any indication of price rigging involving the assessee.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 68 was not justified, as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions. The exemption under Section 10(38) was upheld.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 69C for Unexplained Expenditure

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69C deals with unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal referred to precedents where similar additions were deleted due to lack of evidence.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the addition under Section 69C was based on the assumption of commission payments for arranging artificial capital gains. Since the primary addition under Section 68 was deleted, the basis for the Section 69C addition was also invalidated.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found no evidence of any commission payments made by the assessee. The addition was purely based on estimation without any supporting evidence.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that without a foundation, an estimated addition cannot stand. Since the primary transaction was deemed genuine, the consequential addition lacked merit.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument for commission payments due to lack of evidence and the deletion of the primary addition.
Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69C, as it was consequential to the primary addition, which was found to be unjustified.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that the burden of proof shifts to the Revenue once the assessee provides documentary evidence supporting the genuineness of transactions. It also emphasized that additions based on assumptions without substantive evidence cannot be sustained.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C. It upheld the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(38) for the long-term capital gains from the sale of shares.
Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal stated, "Once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the veracity of his claim, the burden would shift on the Revenue to establish its case." It also noted, "Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned transaction is bogus, sham and part of racket of accommodation entries."

← Previous Next →