Sneh Lata Garg, Delhi V. DCIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

ITA 2007/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9881 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KAPOOR
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries; Penny stocks; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 143(1); 143(2); 131

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2007/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16] SNEH LATA GARG, VS. DCIT, CC-5, TU-70, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: ADGPL7611R) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: SH. LALIT MOHAN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SANJAY KAPOOR, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS]-24, NEW DELHI DATED 21.02.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-24, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF LOSS OF RS. 36,95,007/- ON SALE OF PURCHASE AND SHARES DURING THE INSTANT YEAR. 1.1THAT WHILE UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF THE LOSS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ARBITRARILY REJECTED THE EVIDENCES PLACE D ON RECORD TO HOLD THAT THE LOSS INCURRED AND CLAIMED I S NOT GENUINE AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WAS CLEARLY A PRE-MEDIATED PLAN TO CREATE BO GUS LOSS. 1.2 THAT THE FINDING THAT EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFOR E THE AO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ENQUIRIES/ FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION WING AS WE LL AS INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BY THE AO IS FACTUALLY INCORRE CT, LEGALLY MISCONCEIVED AND UNTENABLE. 2 1.3 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITION WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ALLEGED INFORMATIO N OBTAINED FROM INVESTIGATION WING TO APPELLANT AND A LSO PROVIDING CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES ON WHOSE STATEMENT RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED IN IMPUGNED ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE ORDER SO MADE IS VITIAT ED ORDER. 1.4 THAT FURTHER MORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON MERE SPECULATION, GENERALIZED STATEMENTS, THEORETIC AL ASSUMPTIONS AND ALLEGATIONS AND ASSERTIONS, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCSE AND IS THEREFO RE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 1.5 THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS BASED ON SURMISES CONJECTURE AND SUSPICION AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL, INV ALID AND, UNSUSTAINABLE. 1.6 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL ONUS THEN THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COULD NOT HAVE MECHANICALLY PROCEEDED TO UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE BASED UPON THE MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING AND WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES ON HIS OWN. PRAYER : IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT DENIAL OF LOSS MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED' AND APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.8.2015 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 11,13, 740/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT ACT). LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY THR OUGH CASS. 3 ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSU ED ON 28.7.2016 TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENT NOTICES U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT AND OTHER NOTICES WERE ISSUE D DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE TO THE THESE NO TICES, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED REPLY AND DETAILS. 2.1 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE PLOT AT TDI AND EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 48,00,000/- FROM SALE OF A PLOT. ASSESSEE HAS SET OFF THIS GA IN FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN SECURITIES WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODUCED IN PARA NO. 2 AT PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE AO, O N THE BASIS OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT, THE SHARES OF M/S CRESSANDA S OLUTION LTD. (ALSO KNOWN AS SMART CHAMP IT AND INFRA LIMITED BEFORE AM ALGAMATION), PEARL AGRICULTURE LIMITED AND PEARL ELECTRONICS LIMITED H AVE BEEN USED FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF BOGU S LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG)/SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS (STCL). AO AL SO EXAMINED THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE SAID COMPANIES AND FOUND TH AT THE COMPANIES HAD GENERALLY LOSSES OF MINISCULE PROFIT. AFTER DETAIL ED EXAMINATION OF THE SAID COMPANIES THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS REPORTS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID COMPANIES ARE ONLY PAPER COMPANIES AND ARE CONDUIT IN PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND GETTING COMMISSION FOR THE SAME. 2.2 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELATING TO SHORT T ERM CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. DIRECTORATE OF IN VESTIGATION, KOLKATA HAD UNDERTAKEN 84 PENNY STOCKS INCLUDING THE COMPANIES FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SHARES IN DISPUTE AND FO UND THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE INCLUDED IN 84 COMPANIES AND INDICATI NG BOGUS LTCG/STCL ENTRIES CLAIMED BY LARGE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES. T HE MODUS OPERANDI INVOLVING OPERATORS, INTERMEDIARIES AND THE BENEFIC IARIES HAS BEEN DETAILED IN THE INVESTIGATION REPORT PREPARED AND D ISSEMINATED BY THE KOLKATA INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE. SIMILAR INVESTI GATIONS WERE ALSO CONDUCTED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, MUMB AI AND AHMEDABAD. THE BASIC AIM OF THIS SCHEME IS TO ROUTE THE UNACCO UNTED MONEY OF LTCG 4 BENEFICIARIES INTO THEIR ACCOUNT / BOOKS IN THE GAR B OF EXEMPT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THIS ENTRY OF LTCG IS TAKEN BY SE LLING THE SHARES ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND REGISTERING THE PROCEEDS ARISIN G OUT OF THE SALE OF SHARES INTO THE BOOKS AS LTCG/STCL. FOR IMPLEMENTI NG THIS SCHEME, SHARES OF SOME PENNY STOCK COMPANIES WERE USED. THE MODUS OPERANDI FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES HAS BEEN EXPL AINED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTI GATION RELATING TO STCG/STCL ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR VARIOUS ENTRY O PERATORS WERE LOCATED AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON T HE BASIS OF MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNIVANCE WITH THE SHARE BROKERS, THE AO IS OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A CLEAR CUT MANIPU LATING OR TRADING IN THE SHARES OF THESE 03 COMPANIES FROM WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAS PURCHASED THE SHARE IN DISPUTE AND OCCURRED THE STCL IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME AND SET OFF HER SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AGAI NST SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN TRADING OF PENNY STOCKS. 2.4 TO EXAMINE ALL THESE ISSUES, THE AO CONFRONTED THE SAME VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20.11.2017 AND REQUESTED THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE THE ASSESSEE ON 27.11.2017, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AP PEAR AGAINST SUMMONS DATED 6.12.2017 ISSUED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT FOR PERSONAL DEPOSITION ON 11.12.2017, BUT AGAIN ASSESSEE DID N OT APPEAR. FINALLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHY THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 36,95,007/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE S AME, ASSESSEE FILED HER REPLY DATED 11.12.2017 WHICH THE AO HAS REPR ODUCED IN PARA NO. 9.6 OF HIS ORDER. 2.5 THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE REPLY AND OTHER DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT DESPITE GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR PERSONALLY SO THAT SHE COUL D BE EXAMINED HOW SHE INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF THESE COMPANIES WHICH ARE NOT CARRYING OUT ANY SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. AO WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HER ONUS FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLA IM MADE IN HER RETURN 5 OF INCOME AND FINALLY HELD THAT THE SHORT TERM CAP ITAL LOSS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A SHAM TRANSACTION WITH THE ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES PROVIDERS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE AO HAS ALSO CITED VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT AND FINALLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DISALLOWING THE SHORT CAPITAL LOSS (STCL) OF RS. 36,95,007/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2017 PASSED U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE FILE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.2 .2019 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE BY UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT O RDER OF THE AO. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.2.2019, ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DREW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING PAGES 1- 86 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF A CKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16; COPY O F SHOW CAUSE NOTICE; COPY OF RELY FILED BY ASSESSE BEFORE AO; CO PY OF BANK STATEMENT OF YES BANK ACCOUNT NO. 038790700000598 OF THE ASSESSE E; COPY OF CONTRACT NOTE; COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF APPE LLANT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S INDO JATALIA SEC. (P) LTD. ALONGWITH TRADE B OOK STATEMENT FOR ALL-EQ FROM 1.4.2014 TO 31.3.2015; COPY OF RECEIPT OF TDI; COPY OF STATEMENT OF TDI; COPY OF SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E CIT(A) ALONGWITH CONTRACT NOTE (PAGE 87-88). IN ADDITION TO THE PAP ER BOOK, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED NOTE ON DISTINGUISHING FACTS OF THE CASE SUMAN PODDAR VS. ITO DECIDED ON 22.11.2019 BY THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP(C) NO. 26864/2019 (ARISING OUT OF IM PUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.9.2019 IN ITA NO. 841/2019 PASSE D BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI) AND SMALL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL. HE REQUESTED THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS 6 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A GENUINE AND DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). LD. DR ALSO FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SU PPORTED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS WELL AS ITAT, DELHI BENCHES INCLU DING THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION DATED 08.3.2019 IN THE CASE OF UDIT KALRA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 220/2019 & CM NO. 10774/2019 AND THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT DECISION DATED 22.11.2019 IN THE CASE OF SUMAN PODD AR VS. ITO DECIDED IN SLP(C) NO. 26864/2019. IN ADDITION TO HIS WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS AND THE JUDGEMENTS, THE LD. DR HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF ITAT, E BENCH DELHI ORDER DATED 14.6.2019 PASSED IN THE CASE OF SH. SA NAT KUMAR VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 36(1), NEW DELHI PASSED IN ITA NO. 1881/DEL/2019 (AY 2014-15). HE ALSO DRAW MY ATTENTI ON TOWARDS THE FINDINGS OF THE BENCH AND STATED THAT IN THE PRESE NT CASE M/S CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED IS A COMPANY FROM WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAS PURCHASED AND SOLD THE SHARES AND CLAIMED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS WHICH WAS SUSPENDED BY THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE IN FEBRUARY, 2013 AND BUSINESS OF THIS COMPANY IS REVOKED W.E.F. MARCH, 2 013 MEANING THEREBY THAT THIS COMPANY IS NON-EXISTENT AT THE TIME OF PU RCHASING OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS IS A SHAM TRANSACTIO N ONLY TO EVADE THE TAX AND HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF THE VARIOUS B ENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, HNOBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ESPECIALLY THE ITAT, G BENCH DECISION DATED 25.7. 2019 PASSED IN THE CASE OF SUMAN PODDAR VS. ITO, WARD 39(5), NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 1006/DEL/2019 AY 2014-15 IN WHICH THE UNDERSIGNED W AS THE CO-AUTHOR OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 25.7.2019 WHICH HAS BEEN U PHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.11.2019 IN THE CASE OF SUMAN PODDAR VS. ITO DE CIDED IN SLP(C) NO. 26864/2019. SIMILARLY I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH MY O RDER DATED 8.1.2019 7 PASSED IN THE CASE OF UDIT KALRA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 6717/DEL/2017 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT VID E DECISION DATED 08.3.2019 IN THE CASE OF UDIT KALRA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 220/2019 & CM NO. 10774/2019. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE AO IN WHIC H THE DETAILS OF SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE 03 CO MPANIES HAS BEEN MENTIONED VIDE PARA NO. 2, PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 2 IS REP RODUCED AS UNDER:- 2. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE A SSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE PLOT AT TDI AND EARNED SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAIN OF RS. 48,00,000/- FROM SALE OF A PLOT. THIS G AIN HAS BEEN PARTIALLY SET OFF FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN FOLLOWING SECURITIES:- NAME OF THE COMPANY DATE OF SALE SALE PRICE NET SALE PRICE PURCHASE DATE PURCHASE COST CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED (510) 18.02.2015 5891 5891 27.10.2014 27999 -22108 CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED (22210) 18.02.2015 257636 257636 27.10.2014 1219329 -961693 CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED (5880) 18.02.2015 68208 68208 02.12.2014 299880 -231672 CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED (18500) 18.02.2015 214600 214600 22.01.2015 496725 -282125 CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED (18500) 18.02.2015 214600 214600 22.01.2015 493950 -279350 CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED (18500) 18.02.2015 214600 214600 30.01.2015 499672 -284900 CRESSANDA SOLUTION LIMITED (7280) 25.03.2015 214600 214600 27.10.2014 399672 -327891 TOTAL LOSS FROM CRESSANDA -2389739 PEARL AGRI (15000) 10.03.2015 184383 184383 27.10.2 014 819744 -635361 TOTAL LOSS FROM PEARL AGRI -635361 PEARL ELEC (15000) 11.03.2015 155198 155198 27.10.2 014 825105 -669907 TOTAL LOSS FROM PEARL ELEC -669907 TOTAL LOSS RS. 36,95,007 5.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID DETAILS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM CRESSNADA SOLUTIO N LIMITED AND PEARL AGRICULTURE AND PEARL ELECTRICAL AND THE TOTAL LOS S CAUSED AMOUNTING TO RS. 36,95,007/- TO DISALLOW THE STCG CAUSED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE 8 SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES OF M/S CRESSNDA SOLUTIO N LIMITED DETAILS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE I.E. AMOUNTING TO RS. -2389739/-, I AM SUPPORTING MY VIEW FOR DISALLOWING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS W ITH THE DECISION PASSED BY THE ITAT E BENCH DELHI ORDER DATED 14.6.2019 IN THE CASE OF SH. SANAT KUMAR VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 36(1), NEW DELHI PASSED IN ITA NO. 1881/DEL/2019 (AY 2014-15) IN WHICH THE BENCH HAS OBSERVED THAT INVESTIGATION WING HAS CALLED IN FORMATION U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE COMPANY NAME LY CRESSANDA SOLUTION LTD. WHOSE SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM STCG WAS SUSPENDED FOR TRADE WITH IN LAST 3 YEARS. THE AO WAS SPECIFICALLY REPLIED FROM THE BOMBAY STOCK E XCHANGE I.E. SEPARATE RECORD AVAILABLE WITH STOCK EXCHANGE THAT AS PER R ECORD AVAILABLE WITH THE EXCHANGE, TRADING IN THE SECURITIES OF THE COMP ANY, CRESSANDA SOLUTION LTD. WAS SUSPENDED ON ACCOUNT OF REDUCTION OF CAPITAL, THUS HAD BECOME CLEAR THAT IT WAS MERELY PROVIDING ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF BOGUS LTCG AND STCG IN ORDER TO EVADE THE T AXES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE HAS PURCHASE D THE SHARES FROM BANKING CHANNELS AND AS SUCH WHEN THE PURCHASE IS G ENUINE THEN THE SALE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED ITSELF, BECAUSE THE ENTIRE TRA NSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE IS TO BE SEEN IN ENTIRETY IN THE LIGHT OF ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT TENABLE KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN TRADING OF THE COMPANY I.E. CRESSANDA SOLUTION LTD. WAS SUSPENDED BY THE BOMBAY EXCHANGE IN FEBRUARY 2013 AND REVOKED W.E.F. MARCH, 2013. 5.2 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AS WELL AS THE CHART OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES OF M/S CRESSANDA SOLUTION LTD., I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESEE HAS PU RCHASED SHARES OF CRESSANDA SOLUTION LTD. SHARES AFTER SUSPENSION /RE VOCATION I.E. AFTER FEBRUARY, 2013 AND MARCH, 2013, AS INDICATED IN THE AFORESAID TABLE. HENCE, NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AS WELL AS DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTRADICT THIS FI NDING. THEREFORE, THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AND PURC HASE OF SHARES M/S 9 CRESSANDA SOLUTION LTD. RS. 2389739/- IS CONFIRMED AND HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE. 5.3 AS REGARDS THE BALANCE LOSS OF RS. 6,35,361/- A ND RS. 6,69,907/- FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF SALES OF PEARL AGRI (15 000) SHARES AND PEARL ELEC (15000) SHARES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SOME CHART FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE STCL, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T AO HAS NOT ASKED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REASONS FOR CAUSING THE LOSS W ITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESEE HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINE D THE REASONS FOR CAUSING THE LOSS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. I AM OF T HE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THESE ISSUES OF STCL OF RS. 6,35,361/- AND RS. 6,69,907/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES OF PEARL AGRI (15000) SHARES AND PEARL ELEC (15000) SHARES BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AS PER L AW, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESEE WITH THE CLEAR DIRECTION S TO THE AO TO CALL FOR THE REASONS FOR CAUSING THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES OF TWO COMPANIES WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCES. IF THE AO IS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSE SEE WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, THEN THE AO IS AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE SAME, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTAN TIATE ITS CLAIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06.01.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06-01-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI