TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AFL. Action of the Ld. CIT(A)/AO cannot be accepted, since the scrip of M/s. KAFL cannot be held to be bogus; and based on the finding of fact supra which are supported by documents which have not been adversely commented upon by AO/Ld. CIT(A) we are inclined to allow all the appeals of the assessee and direct the AO to allow the claim of LTCG on sale of scrips of M/s. KAFL in respect of all the assessees. See MANISH KUMAR BAID AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID VERSUS ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA [ 2017 (10) TMI 522 - ITAT KOLKATA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 819/Kol/2018, 2163/Kol/2018, 2354/Kol/2018, 2356/Kol/2018, 2355/Kol/2018, 2402/Kol/2018, 2403/Kol/2018, 2405/Kol/2018, 2406/Kol/2018, 1748/Kol/2018, 1744 And 1745/Kol/2018, 1746/Kol/2018, 1747/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16) - - - Dated:- 7-8-2019 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T. Varkey, JM All these appeals preferred by different assessee s are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A). Since grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase of share was not proved. According to AO, on perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee s return of income does not show substantial trading activity or investment in shares of listed companies. As such according to him assessee s move to acquire the shares of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd was a predetermined move with the sole aim to bring back his own unaccounted money. Therefore, the AO concluded that purchase of shares on 16.08.2012 when company was new and one year old only and did not had any substantial profit; and despite being new in share market and having no substantial share transactions in the earlier years and subsequent years; and when financial results of M/s. Panchshul Marketing Ltd. were not splendid and no chance of lucrative gains at the stage of purchase of its shares, therefore was a predetermined action on assessee s part leading to subsequent path to acquire LTCG by way of dubious methods. This predetermined action, according to AO, is one of the circumstantial evidence leading to the conclusion that LTCG earned was not a genuine transaction. Thus, according to AO, the genuinity of purchase of share was not prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not connected with M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd the amalgamated company or their promoters, directors and any other person who exercised any control over Kailash Auto Finance Ltd which was the amalgamated company or any so called entry operators. As a matter of fact it was contented by the ld AR that neither the assessee indulged in any activity as alleged by AO nor has been part of any modus operandi as stated by the A.O. According to ld AR, the assessee has transacted in the shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd/amalgamated company in the normal course of investment like millions of investors do in the stock market. Therefore, the question of alleged conversion of unaccounted money in the form of alleged bogus long term capital gains with the help of many alleged connected parties/intermediaries through price rigging and price manipulations does not arise. According to him, there is no material evidence for the A.O. to conclude what is apparent is not real. In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the Departments conjectures. Blaming the assessee by v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrupulous persons indulged in the rigging of prices, the transactions bonafidely transacted by the assessee in the fully legitimate system with not a shred of evidence on record to prove the complicity of the assessee/broker of assessee in the alleged modus-operandi, it is not legally allowed to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. It was pointed out by the ld AR that the A.O. has also nowhere in the assessment order referred to any material which can prove the complicity of assessee in the alleged accommodation entry operation. According to Ld. AR, the AO/CIT(A) was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act in regard to the sale proceeds of shares. According to ld AR, when the assessee had produced all evidences to explain the source of the amounts received by the assessee from the brokers and there is no evidence on record to disbelieve that the assessee sold shares through registered share and stock broker, the AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income. Therefore, he prayed before us that the appeal of the assessee may please be allowed. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at that time to take an alternate ground for addition. In view of that, such transaction at best may be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade . According to him, in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain[2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay), the assessee purchased large number of shares of two penny stock companies at a nominal rate in large quantity which assessee claimed as an investment. Considering the circumstances of that case the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and held that the transaction with a penny stock of an insignificant company, its subsequent the merger with a new company, and ultimate sale of the shares of the new company at such an higher profit within a short period of time falls in the ambit of an adventure in the nature of trade, and so, AO brought the aforesaid amount to tax under the head 'business income'. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, it was submitted that assessee's dealing with this stock may be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade and so, profit derives from such activity may kindly be conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and preponderance of probability without bringing on record any legal evidence against the assessee. We rely on the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra) for this proposition. The various facets of the arguments of the ld AR supra, with regard to impleading the assessee for drawing adverse inferences which remain unproved based on the evidences available on record, are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The principles laid down in various case laws relied upon by the ld AR are also not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the amalgamation of CPAL with KAFL has been approved by the order of Hon ble High Court. The ld AO ought not to have questioned the validity of the amalgamation scheme approved by the Hon ble High Court in May 2013 merely based on a statement given by a third party which has not been subject to cross examination. Moroever, it is also pertinent to note that the assessee and / or the stock broker Ashita Stock Broking Ltd name is neither mentioned in the said statement as a person wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his broker. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the ld AO to be false or fabricated. The facts of the case and the evidences in support of the assessee s case clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were bonafide and genuine and therefore the ld AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. We also find that the various case laws of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the ld AR and findings given thereon would apply to the facts of the instant case. The ld DR was not able to furnish any contrary cases to this effect. Hence we hold that the ld AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares of KAFL as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We accordingly hold that the reframed question no. 1 raised hereinabove is decided in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 8. Coming ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after duly paying the Security Transaction Tax (STT). The sale consideration the assessee received by account payee cheque in its Dena Bank account which is evident from the bank statement filed before us at page 16-17 of the paper book. Therefore, the long term capital gain earned in the process has been claimed as exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act. I also note that in support of the assessee s contention various documents had been filed during the course of assessment proceedings i.e. copies of purchase bills, which is available in paper book page 9, copy of Bank statements showing payments made for purchase of shares, which is available in paper book pages 11, demat account with M/s. Kotak Securities Pvt. Ltd. page 18-23, copies of contract notes in respect of sale of shares, which is available at pages 13-15 of paper book, copy of bank statements showing receipts against sale of shares, which is available at page 16-17 of the paper Book. 9. I note that shares of M/s. KAFL were sold by assessee through recognized broker in a recognized Stock Exchange. The details of such sale and contract note have been submitted before AO/Ld. CIT(A). I take note tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses and observed in par 46 as under:- 46. In situations like this case, one may fall into realm of 'preponderance of probability' where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected. Here in this case the material facts strongly indicate a probability that the wholesale buyers had collected the premium money for spending it on advertisement and other expenses and it was their liability as per their mutual understanding with the aseessee. Another very strong probable factor is that the entire scheme of 'twin branding' and collection of premium was so designed that assessee company need not incur advertisement expenses and the responsibility for sales promotion and advertisement lies wholly upon wholesale buyers who will borne out these expenses from alleged collection of premium. The probable factors could have gone against the assessee only if there would have been some evidence found from several searches either conducted by DRI or by the department that Assessee- Company was beneficiary of any such accounts. At least ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra) has upheld the finding of the Tribunal on this issue in para 12 as under:- 12. However, counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order of CIT(A) and also to the order of Tribunal and contended that in view of the finding reached, which was done through Stock Exchange and taking into consideration the revenue transactions, the addition made was deleted by the Tribunal observing as under:- Contention of the AR is considered. One of the main reasons for not accepting the genuineness of the transactions declared by the appellant that at the time of survey the appellant in his statement denied having made any transactions in shares. However, subsequently the facts came on record that the appellant had transacted not only in the shares which are disputed but shares of various other companies like Satyam Computers, HCL, IPCL, BPCL and Tata Tea etc. Regarding the transactions in question various details like copy of contract note regarding purchase and sale of shares of Limtex and Konark Commerce Ind. Ltd., assessee's account with P.K. Agarwal co. share broker, company's master details from registrar of companies, Kolkata were file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso received short term capital gain in his account with HDFC bank does not establish that the transaction made by the appellant were non genuine. Considering all these facts the share transactions made through Shri P.K. Agarwal cannot be held as non-genuine. Consequently denying the claim of short term capital gain (6 of 6) [ ITA-385/2011] made by the appellant before the AO is not approved. The AO is therefore, directed to accept claim of short term capital gain as shown by the appellant. 13. I note that the sale of shares of M/s. KAFL which was dematerlized in Demat account has taken place through recognised stock exchange and assessee received money through banking channel. So, assessee has explained the nature and source of the money with supporting documents and thus has discharged the onus casted upon him by producing the relevant documents mentioned in para 6 (supra), accordingly, the question of treating the said gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act cannot arise unless the AO is able to find fault/infirmity with the same. I note that the source of the receipt of the amount has been explained and the transaction in respect of which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Similarly, the sale of the shares to the respective buyers is also established by producing documentary evidence. It is true that some of the transactions were off-market transactions. However, the purchase and sale price of the shares declared by the assessees were in conformity with the market rates prevailing on the respective dates as is seen from the documents furnished by the assessees. Therefore, the fact that some of the transactions were off-market transactions cannot be a ground to treat the transactions as sham transactions. The statement of the broker P that the transactions with the H Group were bogus has been demonstrated to be wrong by producing documentary evidence to the effect that the shares sold by the assessees were in consonance with the market price. On perusal of those documentary evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that the transactions were genuine. Nothing is brought on record to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding of fact that the cash credits in the,bank accounts of some of the buyers of shares cannot be linked to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that year. It was also placed before the relevant AO as well as before the Tribunal that the sale proceeds have been accounted for in the accounts of the assessee and were received through account payee cheque. The Tribunal was right in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the assessee was simply a shareholder of the company. He had made investment in a company in which he was neither a director nor was he in control of the company. The assessee had taken shares from the market, the shares were listed and the transaction took place through a registered broker of the stock exchange. There was no material before the AO, which could have lead to a conclusion that the transaction was simplicitier a device to camouflage activities, to defraud the Revenue. No such presumption could be drawn by the AO merely on surmises and conjectures. In the absence of any cogent material in this regard, having been placed on record, the AO could not have reopened the assessment. The assessee had made an investment in a company, evidence whereof was with the AO. --Therefore, the AO could not have added income, which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. It is settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be drawn. 18. In the light of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and considering the facts in totality, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker s contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking channels and the demat account. 19. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to treat the gains arising out of the sale of shares under the head capital gains- Short Term or Long Term as the case may be. The other grievance of the assessee becomes infructuous. 20. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of Meenu Goel Vs. ITO, (2018) 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del. Tri) had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the assessment was framed on the strength of the statement of a broker. The relevant part reads as under:- 4. The issue in short is this: The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-07 at ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. The said decisions are dealt with herein below in seriatim as under: 1. Ratnakar M. Pujari vs. Assessee -ITA No.995/Mum/2012, Order dt. 3rd August, 2016 [AY 2006-07] -ITAT Mumbai In this case the ITAT, Mumbai Bench were considering a case where the purchases of shares were treated as bogus and sham transactions by the Revenue in the immediately preceding financial year 2005-06 and the said findings of the AO with respect to bogus and sham purchases were not challenged by the Assessee. In such facts of the case the Tribunal had treated the exempt long term capital gains arising on sales of shares as bogus and sham. However, there is no such finding of fact in the instant case and thus the facts in the instant case are distinguishable. It was brought to my notice that the aforesaid order of ITAT, Mumbai, inter-alia, had been distinguished by Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following cases: a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Ko/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] b. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 2. Ritu Sanjay Mantry vs. ITO - ITA No.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to decide similar issue in favour of the assessee. i) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] ii) CIT vs. Lakshmangarh Estate Trading Co. Limited [2013] 40 taxmann.com 439 (Cal) iii) CIT V. Shreyashi Ganguli [ITA No. 196 of 2012] iv) CIT V. Rungta Properties Private Limited [ITA No. 105 of 2016] v) CIT V. Andaman Timbers Industries Limited [ITA No. 721 of 2008] vi) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738-ITA No. 22 of 2009, Order dt. 29.4.09] 3) Coming to the case of ITO vs. Shamim M. Bharwani (2016) 69 taxmann.com (Mum ITAT), Order dt. 27.03.2015 of Mumbai Triabunal, the brief facts in this case was that the assessee purchased 2500 shares of Emrald Commercial Ltd. (ECl). The purchase was in cash. According to the AO since the purchase was made in cash, the same was not verifiable. Further, the A.O. found that said transaction was not through the stock exchange. The shares were in a nondescript company, with no financial and/or physical assets of value or reported earnings. The shares, purchased at an average rate of ₹ 21.70 per share in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the lower authorities to prove that her transactions are genuine. The Tribunal observed She has also not placed any material to prove that her claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) is genuine and valid. However, in the case of the assessee company all relevant documents were furnished to support purchases as well as sale of shares. Further, the Chennai Tribunal had relied upon and followed the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT, order dated 10.04.2017, which judgment has been considered and distinguished by Kolkata and other Benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/Kol/2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) Reference is also made to the recent judgment dated 1st July, 2019 rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Aparna Misra vs. ITO [ITA No.161/KoIl2019] wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court judgments, as mentioned hereinabove. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hares, which was evidently absent in that case, so is not applicable to case in hand. 7. Coming to the case of Balbir Chand Maini Vs. CIT (2011) 12 taxmann.com 276 (P H) The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court had confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer on the basis of finding of fact by the Tribunal: 10. The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue against the assessee had recorded a finding of fact that the transaction of sale and purchase of shares of M/s. Ankur International Ltd., was not a genuine transaction, a part where of relevant to the present issue, mentioned in para Nos. 27 and 28 of the order, reads as under .... However, in the case of the Assessee Company all relevant documents were furnished to support, and prove beyond all doubts, purchases and as well as sale of shares. Further this judgment has been considered and distinguished by this Tribunal and other Benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases while allowing similar issue in favour of the Assessee: a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kamal Singh Kundal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of LTCG/STCL, then it was the bounden duty of the AO to bring out the falsity/fabrication/wrong doing if any on the part of assessee or confront the assessee with any material which is adverse against the assessee and to proceed in accordance to law i.e. in confronting with principle of Natural Justice without doing so, and when assessee placed all documentary evidences before the AO/Ld. CIT(A), the assessee cannot be again sent back before AO and the decision to send back to AO is decided when proper opportunity has not been given by AO during assessment stage and that is not the case here in the case in hand. 10. Coming to the following cases. I note that in these cases given below Mahendra Kumar Bhandari vs. ITO [Order dt. 06.04.2018] Aravind Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 08.11.2018] Vikram Dughar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 13.11.2018] Sadhana, Bangalore vs. ITO [Order dt. 26.05.2017] Arun Kumar Bhaiya, New Delhi vs. ITO [Order dt. 30.08.2018] Natti Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. ACIT [Order dt. 31.10.2018] Vinod J. Sharma, Thane [Order dt. 28.10.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as this stage. Even otherwise, the ITAT, Delhi Bench in Prem Jain (supra) had held when the facts of the case was that the Assessee had claimed the income from sale of shares to be assessed at business profits and not capital gains where there was short duration of holding of shares and lack of clarity in account books, sale and purchase of shares. In such facts of the case, it was held that profits from sale of shares would amount to business income and not short term capital gain. However, no such case had been made out by the Assessing Officer in the instant cases. The aforesaid order has been considered by this Tribunal while deciding similar issue in favour of an assessee in the case of Kaushalya Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITA No. 194/Kol/2018, order dated 03.06.2019 (ITAT, Kol). More particularly, the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain V. PCIUT, order dated 10.04.2017 (Bom HC) had been considered and distinguished by this Tribunal and other benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/Kol/2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments:- i. Suman Saraf v. ITO in ITA No.1395/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. ii. Jignesh Desai v. ITO in ITA No.1394/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. iii. Rishab Jain v. ITO in ITA No.1392/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. iv. Rekha Devi v. ITO in ITA NO.1269/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. v. Sunita Devi v. ITO in ITA No. 1268/Ko1/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. vi. Jagat Lal Jain v.ITO in ITA No.1226/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. vii. Sneha Choudhary v. ITO in ITA NO.1218/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. viii. U.C. Choudhary Ors (HUF) v. ITO in ITA No.1217/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. ix. Virendara Barmecha v. ITO in ITA No.1201/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. x. Taruna Devi Barmecha v. ITO in ITA No.1199/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xi. Premlata Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No.874/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xii. Sunil Kumar Ladha vs. ITO in ITA No.851/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xiii. Balram Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No.817/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 40,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 6 to 7 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 12 to 14 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 8 and 11 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 25. In respect of Smt. Krishna Devi Mundhra Vs. ITO in ITA No.2356/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate has taken me through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 13 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 40,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 6 to 7 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 15 to 18 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 8 and 14 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 26. In the case of Smt. Saroj Devi Mundhra Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2355/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 8 to 9 and 19 to 20 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 30. In the case of Shri Devi Prasad Dudhani Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2406/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 6 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 1,00,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident from the sale contract note placed at pages 10 to 12 of the paper book. I have also gone through the demat statement found placed at pages 8,9 16 of the paper book and bank statement which is found placed at pages 7 17 of the paper book which shows that the purchase and sale consideration have passed through the banking channel. 31. In the case of Shri Sailesh Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1748/Kol/2018, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate painstakingly took us through the purchase contract note/bill placed at page 4 of the paper book wherein I note that assessee had purchased 25,000 shares of M/s. KAFL and sold it which is evident fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
