×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) - 6, Kolkata dated 09.10.2018 for AY 2015-16.
2. The assessee’s sole g ound of appeal is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CITA was justified in upholding the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of sale proceeds of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL) treating the same as income from undisclosed sources after rejecting the assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on sale of those shares.
3. The brief facts of the issue as has been recorded by the AO in the Assessment Order are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from sale of shares of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The AO noted that the assessee had purchased shares of M/s. Kailash Auto at a price of Rs.40,000/-. The said shares were later sold at a price of Rs.14,12,359/-, which according to assessee, resulted in Long Term Capital Gains and so the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.13,72,359/-. However, the AO relying on the report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and an order by SEBI alleged that the claim of assessee of exempt income (LTCG) was bogus in nature. The AO further alleged that the transactions in the scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) were being manipulated by entry operators and the share prices were hiked artificially to earn LTCG. 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 raised by the assessee against his claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and he also confirmed the additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. I have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing it was brought to my notice by the Ld. AR that this Tribunal in the following cases have decided that the scrips of KAFL are not bogus and held that the LTCG claim of the assessee needs o be allowed:
i) Manish Kumar Baid Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 1236& 1237/Kol/2017 dated 18.08.2017
ii) Rukmini Devi Manpria Vs. DCIT, ITA No.1724/Kol/2017 dated 24.10.2018
iii) Jagmohan Agarwal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.604/Kol/2018 dated 05.09.2018.
It was also brought to our notice by the Ld. AR that AO was influenced by an interim order of SEBI dated 29.03.2016, which the SEBI has withdrawn by later order dated 21.09.2017 by virtue of it all the restrictions imposed upon by the earlier order dated 29.03.2016 has been withdrawn, since SEBI could not find any infirmity in the scrips of M/s. KAFL. So he pleaded that the claim of assessee for LTCG should be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the contentions of the assessee and took us through the AO’s order and Ld. CIT(A) order and submitted that scrips of M/s. KAFL was artificially rigged to provide LTCG to the assessee which cannot be allowed and supported the impugned order and relied on the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Binod Chand Jain in Tax Appeal No.18 of 2017 does not want me to interfere. We note that similar issue arose in Manish Kumar Baid, (supra) wherein, the Tribunal allowed the claim of assessee in respect of LTCG from sale of scrips of M/s. KAFL has held as under:
“6. We have heard both the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find lot of force in the arguments of the ld AR that the ld AO was not 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 vidences 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 who had allegedly dealt with suspicious transactions nor they had been the beneficiaries of the transactions of shares of KAFL. Hence we hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unwarranted allegations leveled by the ld AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion, has no legs to stand in the eyes of law.
We find that the ld DR could not controvert the arguments of the ld AR with contrary material evidences on record and merely relied on the orders of the lower authorities apart from placing the copy of SEBI’s interim order supra. We find that the SEBI’s orders relied on by the ld AO and referred to him as direct evidence against the assessee did not contain the name of the assessee and/or the name of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. through whom the assessee sold the shares of KAFL as a beneficiary to the alleged accommodation entries provided by the related entities / promoters / brokers / entry operators. In the instant case, the shares of CPAL were purchased by the assessee way back on 20.12.2011 and pursuant to merger of CPAL with KAFL, the assessee was allotted equal number of shares in KAFL, which was sold by the assessee by exiting at the most opportune moment by making good profits in roder to have a good return on his investment. We find that the assessee and / or the broker Ashita Stock Broking Ltd was not the primary allottees of shares either in CPAL or in KAFL as could be evident from the SEBI’s order. We find that the SEBI order did mention the list of 246 beneficiaries of persons trading in shares of KAFL, wherein, the assessee and / or Ashita Stock Broking Ltd’s name is not reflected at all. Hence the allegation that the assessee and / or Ashita Stock Broking Ltd getting involved in price rigging of KAFL shares fails. We also find that even the SEBI’s order heavily relied upon