2025 (5) TMI 1419 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Bogus capital gain generated in penny stock - tax exemption u/s 10(38) denied - HELD THAT - Notice u/s 148 for which the assessee was given liberty to submit her reply and after examining the reply as well as the return of income filed by the assessee the AO has pointed out that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence regarding the alleged transactions. The nature and source of the receipts/information were not furnished and the assessee having failed to discharge the burden upon him assessment was completed. Assessee carried the matter on appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). NFAC took note of the grounds raised by the assessee before it the written submission along with paper book and proceeded to take a decision on each and every ground raised by the assessee in the appeal memo. After elaborate reasoning and after referring to various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court the appeal was dismissed. Tribunal in our view failed to take into consideration any of the reasoning given either by the AO or by the Appellate Authority and proceeded to allow the assessee s appeal on only ground that the AO did not apply his mind. This conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is factually incorrect and therefore the impugned order has to be termed to be perverse. Identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of P.L. GOENKA HUF. 2025 (5) TMI 1336 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT which held Tribunal has not examined the reasons set out by the appellate authority which has re-examined the factual position taken note of the grounds raised by the assessee and their oral submissions and has in detail discussed about the lowering of funds and how the funds reached the concerned beneficiaries and has factually found that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who received accommodation entry which was used to avail bogus LTCG/STCL. The various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court were taken into consideration and the appeal was dismissed. Therefore we find that the learned Tribunal committed a serious factual error in coming to the conclusion that there was no application of mind of the assessing officer and erroneously elevated the status of CBDT which is meant as a guiding note of the assessing officer to have an effect of regulation. Therefore the order impugned in this appeal deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the Appellate Authority stands restored and the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue are answered in favour of the appellant/revenue.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertain to the validity of the deletion of an addition of Rs. 9,16,444/- by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning alleged bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) generated through penny stock transactions. The issues raised include whether the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring evidence of tax evasion via manipulation of share prices, the entitlement of the assessee to exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act when the gains appear to be the result of malpractice, the adequacy of documentary evidence produced by the assessee, the legal sanctity of the Tribunal's order being non-speaking, the correctness of accepting the transactions as genuine without piercing the veil of collusive and fraudulent dealings, and whether the Tribunal failed to consider investigations by the Assessing Officer (AO), Investigation Wing, and SEBI indicating artificial price inflation and bogus gains.

The primary legal framework revolves around provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Sections 147 (reassessment), 148 (notice for reassessment), 10(38) (exemption of LTCG on equity shares), and the scope of the AO's "reason to believe" under Section 147. The Supreme Court precedents cited include the authoritative decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., which clarifies the nature of "reason to believe" as a subjective satisfaction based on relevant material, not requiring conclusive proof at the notice stage. Other precedents such as CIT vs. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax establish the application of the "test of human probabilities" in evaluating the genuineness of transactions and the burden of proof on the assessee.

Issue-wise detailed analysis is as follows:

1. Validity of Reopening Assessment and Application of Mind by Assessing Officer

The Tribunal held that the AO did not apply his mind and mechanically followed investigation reports, thus invalidating the reassessment. However, the Court examined the AO's assessment order dated September 9, 2021, which detailed the information received about accommodation entries involving bogus LTCG/STCL/business loss through penny stock transactions on various stock exchanges, specifically citing "Nyassa Corporation Limited." The AO considered the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence, analyzed the return of income, and noted the absence of credible explanation for the transactions. The AO further conducted a detailed inquiry into the company's financials, noting the astronomical and unnatural rise in share prices, and concluded that the transactions were pre-arranged and collusive, aimed at generating fictitious LTCG exempt under Section 10(38). The AO also issued show-cause notices and considered the assessee's replies before finalizing the assessment.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers, the Court emphasized that the AO's "reason to believe" need not be based on conclusive proof but must be founded on relevant material sufficient to form a bona fide belief. The AO's detailed reasoning and consideration of investigation reports, financial data, and the assessee's inadequate response demonstrated application of mind beyond mere mechanical action. The Court thus found the Tribunal's conclusion factually incorrect and perverse.

2. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 10(38) for Alleged Bogus LTCG

The revenue challenged the assessee's claim of exemption under Section 10(38) on the ground that the LTCG was the result of manipulation and malpractice. The AO's investigation revealed that the company's fundamentals were weak, and the share price rise was artificial, indicating a scam involving accommodation entries and collusive transactions. The AO applied the test of human probabilities and held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of transactions.

The Tribunal, however, accepted the transactions as genuine based solely on documents produced by the assessee without probing the collusive nature or fraudulent intent. The Court rejected this approach, noting that mere production of documents without deeper scrutiny does not establish genuineness, especially in light of the department's investigations and the company's financial weakness. The Court upheld the AO's findings that the exemption was not rightly claimed.

3. Adequacy of Documentary Evidence and Investigation Findings

The revenue contended that the assessee failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of transactions in "Nyassa Corporation Ltd." shares. The AO and Investigation Wing's findings, supported by SEBI investigations, pointed to manipulation of share prices and collusion with brokers and entry operators to create bogus LTCG. The Tribunal ignored these direct and circumstantial evidences.

The Court held that the Tribunal erred in disregarding the investigation findings and the absence of credible evidence from the assessee. The AO's detailed analysis and reliance on multiple sources of information were sufficient to conclude that the transactions were not genuine. The Court emphasized the importance of applying the test of human probabilities and not accepting the assessee's documents at face value.

4. Legal Sanctity of the Tribunal's Non-Speaking Order

The revenue challenged the Tribunal's order as a non-speaking order passed without considering the facts and circumstances. The Court agreed that the Tribunal's order lacked detailed reasoning and did not address the substantial evidence and legal arguments presented by the AO and Appellate Authority. The Court underscored the necessity for a speaking order that demonstrates application of mind and consideration of all relevant materials, which was absent here.

5. Acceptance of Transactions Without Piercing the Veil of Fraudulent Collusion

The Tribunal accepted the penny stock transactions as genuine based on documents supplied by the assessee, without investigating the possibility of collusion among brokers, entry operators, and the assessee for tax evasion. The Court found this approach flawed, noting that the AO had established a nexus of collusion and manipulation through detailed investigation and application of legal tests. The Court held that the Tribunal should have pierced the veil of such transactions rather than accept them at face value.

6. Ignoring Larger Scam and Legislative Amendments

The revenue pointed out that the bogus LTCG generated through penny stock manipulation was part of a larger scam, prompting legislative amendments to the Income Tax Act regarding LTCG exemption. The Court noted this context and found that ignoring such a backdrop while adjudicating the genuineness of transactions was erroneous. The AO's assessment was consistent with the legislative intent to curb such tax evasion schemes.

7. Failure to Give Credence to Investigations by AO, Investigation Wing, and SEBI

The Court highlighted that the Tribunal failed to consider the comprehensive investigations by the AO, Investigation Wing, and SEBI, which revealed astronomical price rises in companies lacking net worth or substantive business activities. The Court emphasized the need to apply the test of human probability to uncover the true nature of transactions and found the Tribunal's failure to do so as a serious error.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's appeal and restored the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal. The Court answered all substantial questions of law in favour of the revenue, holding that:

"The learned Tribunal committed a serious factual error in coming to a conclusion that the assessing officer has not applied his mind for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act."

"The facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction of shares and subsequent earning of exempt LTCG clearly indicate the need for deeper investigation to uncover the real nature of the alleged transactions."

"The price rise in the shares was artificially manipulated, and the transactions were pre-arranged accommodation entries managed through collusive transactions by groups of entry operators and shell entities."

"The Tribunal's order is a non-speaking order passed without due consideration of facts and circumstances and investigation findings."

"The AO's reason to believe was founded on relevant material and was not a mere mechanical action."

These principles affirm the AO's authority to reopen assessments based on reason to believe, the applicability of the test of human probabilities in detecting bogus transactions, the necessity of a speaking order by appellate bodies, and the rejection of claims of exemption arising from manipulated transactions. The Court's decision reinforces the integrity of tax assessments against sophisticated tax evasion schemes involving penny stock manipulations and bogus LTCG claims.