TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual. The return of income for the AY 2009-10 was filed on 25.03.2010 disclosing total income of ₹ 1,76,750/-. Subsequently based on the information received from DDIT (Inv) unit III(2), Chennai that assessee made payment of _17,91,000/- to one Ms. Leena Surana, a stock broker who admitted during the survey operations carried in her premises that she was indulging in providing bogus contract notes in order to enable certain assessees to colour their unaccounted cash as accounted money in the form of long term capital gains. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 21.03.2016 and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the following long term capital gains claimed by the assessee is bogus. Name of the company Date of sale Sale price Date of purchase Purchase cost Capital Gains Sepctacle Ltd (formerly Khaitan Weaving Mills) TCS LTD and Kotak Bank 13.03.2009 20.03.2009. 25.03.2009 653430 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares bought more than 12 months ago for which Ms.Leela Surana had issued bogus contract notes. Thus the Assessee sought to bring her unaccounted money ₹ 17,91,000/- into her books as accounted money. 9. The modus operandi used by the stock Broker, Ms.Leela Surana, to help various persons ,one of which was the assessee ,to colour their unaccounted money as accounted is given in her sworn statement ,extract of which is as follows: 5.Please explain as to why you have received the above money in cash? Ans: Since the money which are deposited in cash are actually the unaccounted money of the persons, they have given it in cash. 6. I am showing you few loose sheets impounded at this premise (ANN/ES/LS/IMPJ. please explain the contents? Ans: The loose sheets which are shown to me contains the lists of the names and addresses of the persons and also the details of the unaccounted cash given by them to me at various dates. 7. please explain about the usage of the above cash after receipt. Ans : once the cash is received by me .1 generally deposit the above money in the above mentioned bank accounts. This money ,I use it for purchasing various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show as if intraday shares transaction was done and the incomes through such transaction was shown as the source of purchase of shares. 10. From the transaction statement obtained from Madras Stock exchange Limited in which Central Depository Services India Ltd , a depositary participant, it is seen that date of transfer of shares of Spectacle industries Ltd, both credit and debit, was 06.03.2009,12.03.2009 and 19.3.2009, it was also gathered that the said shares were brought in from a pool account, which is maintained with MSE Securities Ltd., a subsidiary of Madras Stock Exchange Ltd. On the Transaction statement obtained from the said depository participant. It is seen that the said shares were transferred from the pool account of one Ms. Leela Surara on 06.03.2009,12.03.2009 and 19.32009, and the same were transferred back to the pool account on the same date. It is evident that you pool account on the same date. It is evident that you have not purchased the shares and it is only a sham transaction through which unaccounted cash has been brought into as accounted one . Calling upon the assessee as to why the bogus long term capital gains should not be disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related to the shares shown by the appellant as purchased during June 2007. 5.12. Cross examination proceedings were conducted by the AO correctly in the presence of appellant s AR, Smt.Leela Surana and her Authorized Representative. Smt.Leela Surana has confirmed that she has facilitated the bogus contract notes. She has not retracted from the statement given earlier to the DDIT. As her computers and other documents are with the IT department, she was unable to recall the exact details. However, in her communications to the ADIT Unit III, she has clearly admitted details of bogus contract notes done by her for various assessees including the appellant. 5.13. ARs argument that along with Smt. Leela Surana, Mr Dinesh Kumar Surana was also allowed to be present and thus the cross examination proceedings were a mockery is not correct and cannot be accepted. It is clearly mentioned in the proceedings that Shri Dinesh Kumar Surana was also allowed to be present along with Smt. Leela Surana. Similarly, AO allowed the AR of the appellant to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Leela Surana was personally present throughout the proceedings and she has sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
