TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhotia, AR For the Respondent : Shri P. K. Mondal, Addl. CIT, 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 the assessee s are from the same family and transactions in question are identical in nature and grounds are common and facts are similar, we dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience by taking the appeal for AY 2014-15 in I.T.A. No. 416/Kol/2019 in the case of Shri Arun Kumar Maheswari as the lead case and the result of which will be followed for other cases also. 2. Against the Ld. CIT(A) s impugned orders, the assessee s (7) seven in numbers had preferred seven appeals before this Tribunal. However, the Registry pointed out some defects in those appeals (ITA Nos. 416-422/Kol/2019). But the assessee s without trying to cure the defects, had filed another new set of appeals (seven in numbers) which was numbered as ITA Nos. 856-862/Kol/2019. Though there ought to have been only seven appeals, due to the aforesaid action seven more appeals have been filed which means fourteen appeals are altogether listed and heard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epared by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata after carrying out country-wide investigation to unearth the organized racket of generating bogus entries of LTCG which is exempt from tax as per the provisions of section 10(38) of Act. From the aforesaid report, the AO noted that the modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny Stock Companies controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale to save Security Transaction Tax. The beneficiary (mostly individuals) holds the share for one year (which is minimum statutory period of holding required to claim LTCG then only it is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act). Thereafter, operators rig the price of the stock and it gradually raises (price many time) often it goes 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. When the price reaches the desired level, the beneficiary who bought the shares at a nominal price are made to sell it to a dummy company of the operator. For this, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the transaction details that in the scrip of M/s. EIL, the counter party member and counter party client are those who were involved in providing accommodation entry for LTCG and STCL to different beneficiaries. The AO noted that assessee purchased share of Essar India Ltd. at a market price of ₹ 10.80/- per share. According to AO, the assessee waited till the completion of one year for qualifying the gain as exempted income. Thereafter when the price reached the optimum level, the assessee sold these shares to the pre-arranged buyers at pre-settled price. Therefore, according to AO, it is a fact that the assessee has taken accommodation entry of ₹ 6,21,030/- by selling listed penny stock of ESAAR INDIA LIMITED through the pre-settled transactions under the carpet. Therefore, according to AO, the claim of LTCG of ₹ 6,21,030/- is bogus and pre-arranged. So, the AO did not accept the assessee s claim of LTCG and exemption thereof claimed by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO treated the same as cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the entire LTCG to the income of the assessee as unexplained income. On first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases: 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.2003/Mum/2017, Order dt. 9th February, 2018 - ITAT Mumbai In this case is that was reopened by the AO on the basis of information received from office of DGIT (C IB), New Delhi that the assessee had taken accommodation entry from M/s. Magasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. (a company in the Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. group share scam case) of ₹ 10,32,289/-. Subsequently the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act after making an addition of ₹ 10,39,289/- on account of bogus share transactions and ₹ 20,786/- being commission paid to the broker for arranging accommodation entries in the form of share transactions. The AO had given a finding that the assessee had taken entries from Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. involved in the shares scam case for ₹ 10,39,289/- for bogus speculation profit during the financial year 2007 -08. It was further found by the AO that the assessee has paid cash of equivalent amount and received back by cheque and bogus co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 21.70 per share in May 2004, went up to as much as from ₹ 465 to ₹ 489 in July, 2005, i.e., just over years' time. Each of these incidents matched with that which could be expected in a case of a transaction in a penny stock, the modus operandi of the transactions in which was also listed by the AO. Accordingly, relying on the decisions by the apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC); Durga Prasad More v. CIT [1971] 182 ITR 540 (SC) and MC. Dowell Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 (SC), besides by the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Som Nath Maini [2006] 7 SOT 202 (Chd.), he assessed the impugned credit of ₹ 12.15 lacs as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the addition observing that the purchase of shares was off market purchase not reported in the stock exchange. Further, it was observed by the Tribunal that the purchase was through a back date contract note in cash and, there was no trail. Thus it is noted that Tribunal in this case confirmed the addition on a factual finding that the purchase was through a back dated contract note in cash and, there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long-term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL and claimed exemption on it under section 10(38). The Assessing Officer relying upon the report of the investigation wing, SEBI report and findings/observations of the SIT, concluded that exemption under section 10(38) claimed by the assessee was not acceptable and the act of the assessee in purchasing the penny stock shares and sale of fee within the ambit of adventure in the nature of trade. Consequently, amount in question was liable to be taxed under the head 'business income'. The Tribunal confirmed the addition by observing that the department had brought sufficient material on record to demonstrate that unaccounted money was introduced in the books of account through long-term capital gain by adopting such method. It is noted that in the aforesaid case, the Tribunal confirmed the addition on a factua1 finding that the department had brought sufficient material on record to demonstrate that unaccounted money was introduced in the books of account through long-term capital gain by adopting such method. This fact is not applicable in the present case. Further, the abovementioned judgment has been considered/distingu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by Assessing Officer on the basis of finding of fact by the Tribunal that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. The relevant observation is as under: ..... On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. Once the transaction of purchase and sale was found to be bogus then the sale proceeds had to be added as income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act because the money received on the basis of bogus transaction had been credited by the assessee in the books of account which remained unexplained. 9. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below which could not be demonstrated to be erroneous or perverse in any manner, no interference is called for. However, in the instant case of the Assessee company all relevant documents were furnished to support and prove beyond all doubts, purchases 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 al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no occasion for setting aside the matter in as much as the assessee had furnished all relevant documents, materials and/or evidence to support its transactions of purchase and as well as sale of shares and the AO had failed to point out any defect and/or lacuna in the said documents, materials and/or evidence. Further, this Tribunal in its orders had decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by relying on binding judicial pronouncements. Reference is also made to the recent judgment dated 1st July, 2019 rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Aparna Miwsra, supra wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the following jurisdictional Calcutta High Court judgments 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] 11. Coming to the cases given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ains arising from sale of shares. All these judgments are irrelevant and has no application to the facts of the instant case before the Tribunal. 13. Coming to the case of SEBI v. Rakhi Trading P. Ltd [Civil Appeal No.1969 of 2011, Judgment dated 8th February, 2018 (of the Hon ble Supreme Court ) It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with a case where SEBI had initiated actions against few traders and brokers for violation of Regulations 3(a), (b) and (c) and 4 (1), (2)(a) and (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ( the PFUTP Regulations ). In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the action initiated in the case of traders as the said traders have admitted of being involved in synchronized trade to manipulate the prices of shares. There is no such admission by the Assessee in the instant case that it has involved in any price manipulation and/or any dubious tax planning. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court had set aside the action initiated by SEBI in the case of brokers as there was no evidence on record to show involvement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note is found placed at page 15 of the paper book. The assessee has made payment through banking channel through registered broker M/s. Eureka Stock Share Broking Services Ltd. which is evident from page 7 of the paper book wherein an amount of ₹ 1,62,496/- has been paid to M/s. Eureka Stock Share Broking Services Ltd. It is also noted that the shares were duly de-materialized in the assessee s account with the registered broker is found placed at page 14 of the paper book wherein entry dated is stated to be 27.03.2012. It is also noted that the assessee had sold all the above shares for a total consideration of ₹ 9 lakhs on two occasions, first on 09.12.2013 @ ₹ 45.50 per share of 8000 shares and on 20.01.2014 of 7000 shares @ ₹ 60/- per share. Contract note evidencing sale is found placed at page 16 of the paper book. The bank statement evidencing transfer of sale consideration is found placed at page 9 of the paper book. The assessee having fulfilled the conditions required to claim LTCG thus claimed LTCG of ₹ 6,21,030/- after duly remitting STT. It is noted that the assessee has purchased and sold the shares of M/s. EIL through on line platfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details and documents. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gain on sale of scrips of M/s. Esaar India Ltd., which were exempt u/s l0(38) of the Act. Further, it was noted by the AO that the earning in the said scrips has been reported as suspicious by Investigation Wing and accordingly the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. On the basis of documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and the data available on various stock market website in respect of the said scrip, the AO analysed the fundamentals, graphs and the price movement of the said scrip during the period under consideration. While analysing the stock of M/s. Esaar India Ltd. with benchmark index, viz., sensex, the A.O. discussed about abnormal price rise of shares of M/s. Unno Industries and had also at various places referred to the share of M/s Kailash Auto. Taking note of these cases also the AO concluded the fact that the transactions by the assessee in the scrip transaction were rigged. The AO had also stated that he had obtained information u/s 133(6) about 'Exit Providers' or 'Counter Parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares of the said company for ₹ 2,70,750/-. Later on, the appellant sold the shares of the said company at a reasonable profit of ₹ 35.18 per share (₹ 46.00 - 10.83) and thus made a gain of ₹ 8,78,675/-. However, the AO disbelieved the claim of LTCG and held it to be a bogus transaction and added back the entire amount of sale proceeds of ₹ 11 ,49,4251-[ ₹ 46 per share for 25000] as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was pointed out to us by the Ld. AR that had there been an involvement of the appellant in such scam, then the appellant should have sold it a price of ₹ 67.95 per share (on 21.08.2014), being the highest price of which the shares of the said company was traded, so the theory of collusion and suspicious transaction fails. 5. Further according to ld AR, in the show cause notices and the assessment order, the AO had stated the fact that the information prepared by the DIT (Inv.) were based on various enquiries made by it and various statements recorded by investigation team under oath. However, the Ld. AR pointed out that the AO had failed to provide the copies of the same to the assessee. Further, according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 288 ITR 435 7. According to Ld. AR, in the absence of any material/evidences proving the involvement of the appellant in circular trading, it can be concluded that the additions made by the AO were merely on the basis of suspicion and surmise, which resulted from purported generalized information received from Investigation Wing. In this regard, ld AR placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements wherein it was stated that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of presumption, assumption and suspicion which cannot take the shape of proof:- 8. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer (SC) (1981) 131 ITR 0597 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such on understatement or concealment is on the revenue. This burden may be discharged by the revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drown that the assessee has not correctly declared or disclosed the consideration received by him and there is on understa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer (SC) (1981) 131 ITR 0597 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such an understatement or concealment is on the revenue. This burden may be discharged by the revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has not correctly declared or disclosed the consideration received by him and there is an understatement or concealment of the consideration in respect of the transfer. Sub-section (2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him and there is no concealment or suppression of the consideration. 14. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Manish Kumar Baid, Mahendra Kumar Baid vs ACIT (ITA No. 1236/1237/Kol/2017 dated 18.08.2017) (A.Y. 2014-15) wherein it has been held that:- We find lot of force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, (iii) no material was based by AO to prove that the assessee was in any way involved in circular trading to rig the value of shares. The only thing the AO had done is reproduce the extract of general details received from BSE. Further, the AO was also in possession of statement of operators of counter party member who had accepted their role in managed and synchronized transactions. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO neither apprised the appellant of such information collected u/s 133(6) nor provided the copies of the same for rebuttal. Further, the copies of statement and an opportunity for cross examination were also not granted to the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It was pointed out by the ld. AR that the assessee had nothing to do with share transaction of M/s. Kailash Auto and M/s. Unno Industries. According to Ld. AR, the AO had referred to these two companies share transactions which are irrelevant in the case of assessee and was only to create suspicion and reference of these companies exposes nonapplication of mind of AO. Likewise, the names of two operators are mentioned at page 9 of the order of AO i.e. of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not appear, for that reason, the claim of the assessee should not be denied, specially in the cases when the existence of broker is not in dispute, nor the payment is in dispute. Merely because some broker failed to appear, assessee should not be punished for the default of a broker and on mere suspicion the claim of assessee should not be denied, Similarly we also find guidance and support from the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Emerald Commercial Ltd. reported in 120 taxman 282 whereby it was observed as under : Business income-Business loss-Loss on sale of shares-Details of purchase and sale of shares furnished-Payment and receipts were through account payee cheque-identity of seller and purchaser not disputed-Claim for loss could not be disallowed on the mere ground that the assessee failed to produce the brokers for verification of the transaction-Finding of the Tribunal that the loss incurred by the assessee in the share dealings is genuine and is allowable was based on material and was not perverse-ClT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd.(2000) 161 CTR (Cal) 282 : (2000) 244 lTR 422 (Cal) followed Respectfully fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Calcutta Stock Exchange and all the bills were received from the share broker through account payee which are also filed in accordance with the assessment k appears from the facts and materials placed before the Tribunal and after examining the same, the tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee. In doing so the tribunal held that the transactions cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises. However it was held that the transactions of the shares are genuine. Therefore we do not find that there is any reason to hold that there is no substantial question of law held in this matter. Hence the appeal being ITA No.620 of 2008 is dismissed. 9.4. We note that the Id. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld, AR (supra) and have been duly considered to arrive at our conclusion, The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to support the impugned decision of the ld CIT(A)/A.O. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undiscl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either found to by the 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 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 A.O. 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. It is relevant to rely on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Alpine Investment (ITA No. 620 of 26.08.2008). In this case the shares were transacted through recognized stock brokers and through regular bank channel and supported by contract notes and bills. The stock broker also appeared a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht have been the view expressed by the AO but he miserably failed to substantiate that. The High Court held that the transactions were at the prevailing price and therefore the suspicion of the ld AO was misplaced and not substantiated. CIT vs Shreyashi Ganguli (ITA No. (Cal HC) : 196 of 2012) In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the Assessing Officer doubted the transactions since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI's action. However the transactions were as per norms and suffered STT, brokerage, service tax, and cess. There is no iota of evidence over the transactions as it were reflected in demat account. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. CIT vs Runata Properties Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 105 of 2016) (Cal HC):- In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this tribunal, wherein, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee where the AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee in respect of his transactions in alleged penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the AO disallowed the loss on trading of penny stock on the basis of some information received by him. However, it was also found that the AO did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the BSE and on such sale, Security Transaction Tax was duly paid. Payments were duly received in the bank account of the assessee. The transactions were all through a registered broker and through BSE since the scrips of M/s. Essar India Pvt. Ltd. was a listed company in BSE backed by a contract note (page 2 and 8 9 of the paper book) and shares were credited in the de-mat accounts (page 13 and 14 of the paper book) and duly reflected in the books of account. In the light of these evidences on record we are of the opinion that the purchase and sale of shares per-se cannot be held to be bad. 30. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has disbelieved or discarded the evidence produced by the assessee to substantiate that the purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Essar India Pvt. Ltd. through the BSE, through recognized stock broker and through banking channel was genuine by observing as under: I also find that all the submissions made by the appellant during the course of the appeal point towards the elaborate documentation, meaning thereby that the appellant has produced papers relating to application for the shares, the allotment of the shares, the share certificates, payments by cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been reproduced in the assessment order nor the assessee given a copy of the statements to rebut. So the action of both AO and ld CIT(A) referring to statements which were purportedly recorded under oath by the Investigation Wing cannot be made the basis for drawing adverse inference against the assessee. Thus the action of AO to refer to certain purported statements of the three individuals without establishing any nexus with the assessee can at best mislead or create suspicion and reference to irrelevant material itself makes the order bad. Not only that the AO has not even bothered to give a copy of the same to the assessee and did not give an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine those persons itself vitiates the action of the AO and the order passed by him is therefore fragile for violation of natural justice and null in the eyes of law as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 dated 16.11.2015. These purported statement though the contents of which neither we are aware nor the appellant assessee, cannot be the basis for drawing adverse inference against the assessee in the ligh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeds were utilized for purchase of 10,000 shares of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd., in IPO application of Power Grid Ltd. and other investment in shares. 33. We find force in the contentions of the ld. AR that the AO and CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of suspicious transactions surrounding circumstance, human conduct and preponderance of probability without bringing on record any relevant material or legally admissible evidence against the assessee. For the said proposition we rely on the judgment of the Special Bench of Mumbai Bench in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra). The various facets of the contention of the AO, to rope in the assessee for drawing adverse inferences which remain unproved based on the evidence 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 further find that neither the reports relied on by the AO has not been brought on record nor is there any reference of finding of such report to impute the assessee is there on record. The AO has merely carved o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also pertinent to note that the assessee has purchased the stocks through BSE and through registered brokers and thereafter the assessee has sold the shares through the registered share/stock brokers with Bombay Stock Exchange, and is supported by valid contract notes as per law; and in similar case, the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs Rungta Properties in ITA No.105 of 2016 dated 08 May, 2017 wherein it was held that on the last point, the tribunal held that the AO had not brought relevant material to show that the transactions in shares of the company involved were false or fictitious. It is the finding of the AO that the scripts of this company was executed by a broker and the broker was suspended for some time. It is the assessee s contention that even though there are allegations against the broker, and for that reason the assessee cannot be held liable on this point, the tribunal held that As a matter of fact the AO doubted the integrity of the broker and the broker firm and also AO observed that the assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of any discussion of trading of shares. The AO relied the loss of ₹ 25,30,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No.620 of 2008 dated 26th August, 2008 wherein the High Court held as follows : It appears that there was loss and the whole transactions were supported by the contract notes, bills and were carried out through recognized stock broker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and all the bills were received from the share broker through account payee which are also filed in accordance with the assessment. It appears from the facts and materials placed before the Tribunal and after examining the same, the tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee. In doing so the tribunal held that the transactions cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises. However it was held that the transactions of the shares are genuine. Therefore we do not find that there is any reason to hold that there is no substantial question of law held in this matter. Hence the appeal being ITA No.620 of 2008 is dismissed. 36. We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered to arrive at our conclusion. The ld. DR could not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
