TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. Thus we deem it fit to remit the issue of exemption in this appeal back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication on the lines indicated above. Therefore, the Assessing Officer shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned transactions are actual, genuine etc. The assessee shall comply with the Assessing Officer s requirements as per law. AO is also free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit. AO shall also bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and relationship of the assessee with other promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc. as had been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal Sons [ 2019 (2) TMI 1640 - ITAT CHENNAI] - Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the purchase and sale of shares by the assessee, as penny stock transactions. The Ld.AR submitted on the lines of grounds of appeal and relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case Mr Sunil Kumar Lalwani Vs ITO others, Non Corporate Circle 9(4), Chennai in ITA No 659 660/ CHNY/2018 dt. 09.01.2019. Per Contra, the Ld DR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction U/s 10 (38) but he has not proved the genuineness, therefore, reiterating the facts and circumstances of this case from the orders of the lower authorities, the Ld. DR supported those orders and pleaded that the appeal be decided accordingly. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the assessee has not been given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness but the assessment has been made primarily, based on the evidences collected by the Revenue in the course of the investigation conducted by them on the brokers / share broking entities etc. This is not permissible. This being so, in the interests of natural justice, the issue of the genuineness of the transactions require re-adjudication. Since, the right to exemption must be established by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company, namely, M/s Concrete Credit Limited, issue of public shares, inflation of price of shares, etc. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reexamined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The A.O shall bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and relationship of the assessee with other promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc.. The Assessing Officer shall also furnish a copy of the report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata to the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. Further, perusal of assessee s case shows that it is similar to the facts in the case of Shri Heerachand Kanunga, a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal made for assessment years 2010- 11 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 2786 2787/Mds/2017 dated 03.05.2018 . The relevant portion from that order is extracted as under:- 9. A perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his friends circle. What is the true nature of the transaction? From whom did the assessee actually purchase the shares? Did the assessee take possession of the shares in its physical form? In Para No.8.1 of the Assessment Order, it is mentioned that the assessee is an investor and has been regularly trading in shares. If this is so, does the demat account show such transactions being done by the assessee or is this the only one of transaction. Thus, clearly the facts required for adjudicating the appeals are not forthcoming. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the assessee has held the shares for more than 12 months. This is because assuming that the demat has been done and the shares of M/s.BPL has come into the assessee s demat account and has immediately flown out. Then the factum of the possession of the shares for more than 12 months have to be proved by the assessee. This is also not forthcoming. In reply to a specific query, as the date of the demat of shares, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that the demat was done on various dates. Then the question rises as to why there is so much of difference in the dates of demating when 15000 shares have been purchased toget ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
