2025 (6) TMI 312 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - Denial of Exemption of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) - HELD THAT - A reading of the assessment order would reveal that the AO has got completely swayed away by the information available in the system of the Department through investigation carried out by its Investigation Wing. In fact the AO admits that though as per the direction of SEBI BSE had imposed restriction in the trading of shares of M/s Appu/Ejecta Pvt. Ltd. however subsequently trading in shares were allowed. AO has further stated that no final report of the SEBI is available commenting anything adverse with regard to the conduct or activity of the company. Thus in our view the conclusion drawn by the Departmental Authorities are based more on conjectures surmises suspicion rather than concrete evidence. Pertinently learned counsel appearing for the assessee has relied upon a decision of Shrenik Kumar Virchand Mardia 2025 (3) TMI 1492 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein the Bench while dealing with identical nature of the dispute involving the scrip of Appu/Ejecta has decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues presented and considered in these appeals primarily revolve around the validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee from sale of shares of M/s Appu Marketing and Manufacturing Ltd. (also known as Ejecta Marketing Ltd.) for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The core legal questions include:

1. Whether the reopening of assessments under Section 147 was justified based on the information available to the AO.

2. Whether the shares sold by the assessee were genuine investments or part of accommodation entries intended to generate artificial LTCG.

3. Whether the LTCG claimed by the assessee from sale of these shares could be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, given allegations of price rigging and manipulation of the scrip.

4. The evidentiary value of documents such as contract notes, Demat account statements, bank statements, and broker confirmations submitted by the assessee in establishing the genuineness of transactions.

5. The applicability and sufficiency of investigation reports and SEBI orders relied upon by the AO to impugn the transactions.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Justification for reopening assessments under Section 147:

The legal framework governing reopening of assessments under Section 147 requires that the AO must have "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This belief must be based on tangible material or information. The AO relied on information from the Department's Investigation Wing indicating that M/s Appu Marketing was a penny stock company involved in price rigging, and that the share price was artificially inflated. The AO also noted SEBI's interim directions suspending trading in the company's shares.

However, the AO admitted that no final adverse SEBI report was available, and trading restrictions were subsequently lifted. The AO's conclusion was primarily based on suspicion and information from investigation reports rather than independent inquiry or concrete evidence. The Court observed that the AO's reliance on such material without independent verification or conclusive findings did not meet the threshold for reopening assessments.

2. Genuineness of the share transactions and LTCG claimed:

The assessee purchased 50,000 shares in 2013 through proper banking channels, with shares credited to her Demat account. The shares were listed and traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), and sales were conducted through registered stock brokers with contract notes and banking evidence on record. The assessee sold shares in a staggered manner over several years and continued to hold some shares even as on date, which negated the contention that the transactions were accommodation entries designed solely to generate artificial LTCG.

The AO did not conduct any independent inquiry to establish that the purchasers to whom the assessee sold the shares were exit providers or that the transactions were sham. The Court emphasized that the presence of proper documentation, genuine trading through recognized channels, and continued holding of shares supported the genuineness of the transactions.

3. Treatment of LTCG as unexplained income under Section 69A:

Section 69A permits addition of unexplained money or assets to income. The AO invoked this provision to add back the LTCG amounts, alleging the transactions were non-genuine and intended to provide accommodation entries. However, the Court noted that the AO's findings were based on conjectures and suspicion without concrete evidence linking the assessee to price rigging or manipulation.

The Court referred to precedents where it was held that when the assessee substantiates share transactions with Demat statements, contract notes, and banking evidence, and the AO fails to disprove them, capital gains cannot be treated as unaccounted income under Section 68 or 69A.

4. Evidentiary value of documents and failure of AO to conduct independent inquiry:

The assessee produced comprehensive evidence including contract notes, Demat account statements, bank statements, and broker confirmations. The AO did not reject any of these primary documents. The Court criticized the AO for relying solely on investigation reports without conducting independent inquiry or verifying the identity and nature of the buyers.

The Court also highlighted the assessee's request for relied-upon documents and statements which were ignored by the AO, undermining the fairness of the assessment process.

5. Reliance on SEBI and investigation reports:

The AO heavily relied on an interim SEBI order suspending trading in the company's shares and investigation reports alleging price manipulation. However, the Court observed that SEBI subsequently lifted trading restrictions and did not issue any final adverse report implicating the assessee. The Court found that such interim reports and investigation findings, without conclusive evidence or final adjudication, could not form the basis for adverse tax treatment.

The Court also distinguished a cited precedent relied upon by the Revenue involving multiple appeals disposed of in a consolidated manner without regard to specific facts, deeming such generalized reliance inappropriate.

Cross-reference to Coordinate Bench decision:

The Court relied on a recent Coordinate Bench decision involving identical facts and the same scrip, where it was held that the assessee's LTCG claim was legitimate. The decision emphasized that the assessee had substantiated transactions with proper evidence, and the AO failed to establish any link to bogus transactions or accommodation entries. The Coordinate Bench quashed additions made under Section 69A and set aside the assessment order.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the additions made by the AO under Section 69A were unsustainable due to lack of concrete evidence, failure to conduct independent inquiry, and reliance on interim and inconclusive reports. The assessee's transactions were genuine investments, and the LTCG claimed was rightly exempt under the Act. The reopening of assessments was unjustified, and the additions were ordered to be deleted.

Significant holdings:

"The Assessing Officer's conclusion that the scrip of M/s Appu Marketing Ltd./Ejecta Marketing Ltd. is a penny stock and the entire share transaction is non-genuine and was entered into for providing accommodation entries to generate artificial profit/loss is based more on conjectures, surmises, suspicion rather than concrete evidence."

"The assessee had purchased the shares as a genuine investor and not to avail accommodation entry. Had it been the case, she would not have held on to some shares even till date."

"The AO failed to conduct any independent inquiry to establish that the persons to whom the assessee sold shares were exit providers."

"When details of share transactions are substantiated by Demat account statements and contract notes, and the AO fails to prove such transactions as bogus, the capital gains cannot be treated as unaccounted income under Section 68 or 69A of the Act."

"Interim SEBI orders and investigation reports without final adverse findings cannot be the sole basis for disallowance or addition."

"The AO's reliance on generalized investigation reports and failure to consider the assessee's evidence and requests for documents renders the additions unsustainable."

"Additions under Section 69A are not justified in absence of any specific supporting evidence linking the assessee to dubious transactions."

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed deletion of the additions made in both assessment years, partly allowing the appeals.