TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made by the Assessing Officer U/s 68 of the Act treating long term capital gain as accommodation entries for bogus claim of exempt income and consequently the Assessing Officer has also made an addition on account of expenditure being unexplained commission expenses on such transaction of accommodation entries.Hence there is no basis left for the addition as possible commission paid to brokers/intermediaries to arrange for the accommodation entry. Accordingly, the addition is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 17/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2018 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Assessee : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv) For the Revenue : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 09/10/2017 of ld. CIT(A), Alwar for the A.Y. 2014-15. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,59,22,699/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit U/s 68 r.w.s. 115BE of the I.T. Act, 1961 without apprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sanskriti Vincom Pvt. Ltd. is also established to the extent that the assessee made payment of purchase consideration of ₹ 4.00 lacs through his bank account with ICICI bank and the payment is duly reflected in the bank account statement. Therefore, the payment of purchase consideration has been established beyond any doubt. The only question which can be raised for this transaction of purchase of shares of these two companies is the suppression of purchase price so as to create an artificial capital gain of maximum amount. However, the Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the purchase price was artificial suppressed by the parties with intention to maximize the capital gain through the modus operandi of bringing the assessee unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain exempt U/s 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has given much emphasis on the report of DDIT(inv.), Kolkata and some statements were recorded during the investigation proceedings by Kolkata wing wherein three persons who were brokers namely Shri Anil Khemka, Shri Devesh Upadhyay and Shri Pankaj Agarwal were examined by the DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata and in their statements recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DEMAT account of the assessee is also cannot be doubted. The sale price as on the date of transaction is also the prevailing price in the stock exchange. Hence it is not a case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown an inflated sale price which is not as per the prevailing market price of the shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd.. It is pertinent to note that the shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. were issued to the assessee only in lieu of the shares of erstwhile two companies M/s Careful Projects Advisory Ltd. and M/s Panchshul Marketing Ltd. and it is not a transaction of acquiring the shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd against the consideration. Thus, the allotment of shares by M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. in pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation established the fact that the assessee was already holding the equal number of shares in the erstwhile companies namely M/s Careful Projects Advisory Ltd. and M/s Panchshul Marketing Ltd. Thus the holding of shares by the assessee and allotment of shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. are the material facts emerging from the records, which cannot be disputed. The allotment of shares of M/s Kailash Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince it is one of the main ingredients to prove backdated purchase of shares. So far as the basic documents are concerned, they have been filed before the A.O and also during the appellate proceedings. Additional informations as stated above have also been provided by the appellant. In this regard I have taken note of the fact that the appellant is himself a founder and promoter of Raghunandan group and is a management graduate having experience of more than 19 years in financial market and financial products. In this regards, the appellant has submitted as under; 1. He has an in depth knowledge and strong understanding of various intricacies of financial market. The Appellant has been investing in the share market based on various reports , analysis and studies made by experts in the field, which are published in newspapers, trade magazines etc. as also on the basis of knowledge gained through acquaintances. 2. During the period April 2013 to April 2016, the Appellant had traded in several other securities as well through the stock exchange mechanism. In or about February 2012, the Appellant came to know from Mr. Anuj Goyal that shares of Careful Projects Advi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uine then corresponding purchase of such shares in the demat form is also recognised. The A.O has particularly raised the issue of exorbitant price of the share at which they are sold as compared to very low purchase price. If there any manipulation is done to rig the price of the shares then the SEBI is the competent body to investigate it. SEBI in its order dated 21/09/2017 has stated that no adverse finding against the aforementioned 244 entities with respect to their role in the manipulation of the scrip of Kailash Auto. Accordingly SEBI has revoked the suspension of the said entities including KAFL. Merely sharp increase in share price cannot be the reason for treating sale/purchase of such shares as dubious in nature. I have also considered various reasons given by the A.O to treat the share transaction as sham transaction. Merely, basing the judgment on the basis of statement given by 3rd parties without corroborating it with evidences on record is neither tenable nor reasonable inference. The A.O has not brought on record any evidence that any cash amount were transferred , from the appellant to the share brokers/intermediaries in lieu of money received through ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsence of any cogent evidence to the contrary. In a recent judgment, Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the revenue case in the case of CIT-1 Vrs Smt. Pooja Agarwal and Jitendra Kumar Agarwal in the Appeal No.385/2011. Hon ble High Court in its order dated 11/09/2017 has upheld the decision of CIT(A) and Hon ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in giving relief to the assessee. Hon ble Court has recorded as under; 8. the assessee submitted reply to the show cause notice contending that the share transactions are genuine and the short term capital gain of ₹ 98,56,872/- has been earned from purchases and sales of shares of Konark Commercial limited and Limtux Investment Ltd. Investigation revealed that the entire share transactions were bogus and mere accommodation entries obtained from an entry provider Sh P K Agarwal from Kolkata. The said facts were revealed during search carried out by the Investigation wins, Jaipur in the case o f B C Purohit Group. Therefore, in the above mentioned judgments by the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, the Hon ble Court has upheld the decision taken by the ITAT/CIT(A) that if the assessee files the copy of contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing the payment of consideration of the acquisition of shares on 29.02.2012. It appears that the said payment was made by the assessee at the time of applying for allotment of shares and subsequently the shares were allotted by the company on 01.03.2012. Thus, it is clear that the shares acquired by the assessee is not a trading transaction but these were allotted directly by the company under the preferential issue and hence, the role of intermediate is ruled out. Once, the shares were directly allotted by the company M/s Rutron International Ltd. against the consideration paid by the assessee through cheque. Then the role of any intermediately particular of Shri Anil Agrawal is said allotment does not appear from any of the record. Even as per the statement as reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order Shri Anil Agrawal has stated that he is having business nexus with the companies including M/s Rutron International Ltd. The department put a question about the association with as many as 13 companies and in response to that he has accepted that he is having business nexus with these companies including M/s Rutron International Ltd. The nature of service was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the directors of these companies. Thus, it is clear from the relevant part of statement of Shri Anil Agrawal as reproduced by the AO that he has stated having business nexus with these companies and nature of business being consultancy services. Hence, he has not stated anything about providing bogus long term capital gain in respect of the equity shares of M/s Rutron International Ltd. A business nexus with any company will not automatically lead to the conclusion that the shares allotted by the other company is bogus transaction. As per question no. 5 and answer thereto it is clear that Shri Anil Agrawal was not the Director of M/s Rutron International Ltd. but he has stated to know some of the directors of these companies including M/s Rutron International Ltd. Hence, from this relevant part of the statement of Shri Anil Agrawal it cannot be inferred that he has provided the bogus long term capital gain from purchase and shares of equity shares of M/s Rutron International Ltd. much less the specific transaction of preferential issue allotment of shares by the company itself to the assessee. Further, though he has explained the modus oprendi of providing bogus long ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt based on statement without giving an opportunity is not sustainable in law. We further note that the assessee produced copy of affidavit of Shri Anil Agrawal who has retracted his statement before the Investigation Wing, Kolkata however, without going into controversy of the retraction of the statement we find that the statement cannot be used by the AO without giving an opportunity to cross examination of Shri Anil Agrawal. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Pramod Jain and Others vs. DCIT (supra) whole dealing with an identical issue as held in para 6 to 8 as under:- 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee purchases 800 equity shares M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. for a consideration of ₹ 4 lacs the assessee has produced the purchase bill of the shares purchase from M/s Winall Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. which shows that the assessee purchase 800 equity shares having face value of ₹ 10/- each M/s Gravity Barter Pvt. Ltd. in allots of 400 each for a consideration of ₹ 2 lacs each total amount to ₹ 4 lacs @ ₹ 500 per shares. The purchase price of ₹ 500 per share itself shows that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lotted only in exchange of shares of M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. The holding the shares of M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. and the allotment of shares M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. are directly interconnected. In the absence of holding of shares M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. the shares of the M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. could not be issued or allotted to the assessee. Therefore, holding of the shares by the assessee at least at time of amalgamation took place and shares of the M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. on 04.02.2012 cannot be doubted. Moreover, these shares were dematerialized by the assessee in the Demat account, therefore, on the date of allotment of share of M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd the assessee was holding these shares and prior to that the assessee was holding the shares of M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. on exchange of the same the shares of M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of the transactions however, once the holding of shares of the assessee at the time of the same were issued by M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. is not in dispute then the holding of shares of M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has produced the record including the share application, payment of share application money, allotment of share then merely because of a short period of time will not be a sufficient reason to hold that the transaction is bogus. The shares allotted to the assessee vide share certificate dated 31.03.2011 were dematerialized on 21.10.2011, therefore, on the date of dematerialization of the shares the holding of the shares of the assessee cannot be doubted and hence the acquisition of the shares of the assessee cannot be treated as a bogus transaction. Nobody can have the shares in his own name in demant account without acquiring or allotment through due process hence, except the purchase consideration paid by the assessee holding of shares cannot be doubted when the assessee has produced all the relevant record of issuing of allotment of shares, payment of share application money through bank, share certificate and demat account showing the shares credited in the demat account of the assessee on dematerialization. The said company M/s Paridhi Properties Ltd. was subsequently merged with M/s Luminaire Technologies Ltd. vide scheme approved by the Hon ble Bombay High Court order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made any transaction with him, so in what capacity he can call him for cross examination before your good self. Since your good self has got the authority, we humbly request youto kindly issue the notice u/s 131 of the income Tax act 1961 to him also for cross examination. We also request your good self to kingly provide us the copy of statements of Shri Deepak Patwari along with the other relevant documents. Please note that the assessee is ready to bear the cost of his travelling in this regard. It is manifest from the assessee s reply to show cause notice that the assessee had specifically demanded the cross examination of Shri Deepak Patwari however, the Assessing Officer did not offer the opportunity to the assessee to cross examine Shri Deepak Patwari. Further, the AO asked the assessee to produce the Principal Officers of the M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. and M/s Paridhi Properties Ltd. However, in our view if the Assessing Officer wanted to examine the principal Officers of those companies he was having the authority to summon them and record their statements instead of shifting burden on the assessee. It is not expected from the assessee individual to produce the principa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 8. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the statement of witness cannot be sole basis of the assessment without given an opportunity of cross exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in so-called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that GTC actually had some kind of a share in such secret money. It is quite a trite law that suspicion howsoever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition except for some material evidence on record. The theory of 'preponderance of probability' is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side. The conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and materials and not on the basis of presumption of facts that might go against assessee. Once nothing has been proved against the assessee with aid of any direct material especially when various rounds of investigation have been carried out, then nothing can be implicated against the assessee. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has paid over and above the purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exempted from tax or was taxable at a lower rate. As the appellant's case is of short term capital gain, it does not exactly fall under that category of accommodation transactions. Further as per the report of DCIT, Central Circle-3 Sh. P.K. Agarwal was found to be an entry provider as stated by Sh. Pawan Purohit of B.C. Purihit and Co. group. The AR made submission before the AO that the fact was not correct as in the statement of Sh. Pawan Purohit there is no mention of Sh. P. K. Agarwal. It was also submitted that there was no mention of Sh. P. K. Agarwal in the order of Settlement Commission in the case of Sh. Sushil Kumar Purohit. Copy of the order of settlement commission was submitted. The AO has failed to counter the objections raised by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Simply mentioning that these findings are in the appraisal report and appraisal report is made by the Investing Wing after considering all thematerial facts available on record does not help much. The AO has failed to prove through any independent inquiry or relying on some material that the transactions made by the appellant through share broker P.K. Agarwal were non-genuine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration by cheque and therefore, it is not a case of payment of consideration by in cash. But the transaction is established from the evidence and record which cannot be manipulated as all the entries are part of the bank account of the assessee and the assessee dematerialized the shares in the D-mat account which is also an independent material and evidence cannot be manipulated. Therefore, the holding of the shares by the assessee cannot be doubted and the finding of the AO is based merely on the suspicion and surmises without any cogent material to show that the assessee has introduction his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has also referred to SEBI enquiry against the M/s Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brokers Ltd. However, we note that the said enquiry was regarding financial irregularities and use of fund belonging to the clients for the purpose other than, the purchase of shares on behalf of the clients. Therefore, the subject matter of the enquiry has no connection with the transaction of bogus long term capital gain. The decisions replied upon the ld. DR in case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (supra) is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y evidence, it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain. Accordingly, in view of above facts and circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. Hence, this ground of revenue s appeal is dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of notional commission expenses U/s 69C of the Act. We have heard the ld DR as well as the ld AR of the assessee and considered the relevant material on record. This is a consequential issue to the addition made by the Assessing Officer U/s 68 of the Act treating long term capital gain as accommodation entries for bogus claim of exempt income and consequently the Assessing Officer has also made an addition on account of expenditure of ₹ 10,68,720/- being unexplained commission expenses on such transaction of accommodation entries. 8. Since this is a consequential issue and the ld. CIT(A) has decided and same in para 6.3 as under: 6.3 I have considered the order passed by the A.O. and submissions filed by the appellant. This ground of appeal is the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
