P.K. Agarwal (HUF), Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 35(1), , Kolkata

ITA 2077/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1361 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: FURNISHING REASONABLE; PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. IF ASSESSEE IS NOT FORTHCOMING
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Transactions in derivatives; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Scheme of amalgamation; Onus to prove; Penny stocks; Set aside; Capital Gains; Bogus
• Section: 131; 68; 143(3); 260A; 264; 43; 48; 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2260/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 ADITYA SARAF (HUF) CF-265, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-I, KOLKATA-700091 [ PAN NO.AAFHA 2618 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-50(3), UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, MANIKTOLA CIVIC CENTRE, ULTADANGA, KOLKATA-54 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-03-2019 ITA NO.2087/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 RINKI AGARWAL FLAT NO. 503, GANGA APARTMENT, MANGAL PANDEY ROAD, SILIGURI, DARJEELING- 734405 [ PAN NO.AIZPS 9573 R ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN (POORVA), 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-03-2019 ITA NO.2078/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 REKHA AGARWAL / INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 2 CENTRAL PLAZA, ROOM NO. 5M, 5 TH FLOOR, 41, B.B. GANGULY STREET, KOLKATA- 700012 [ PAN NO.ADPPA 9185 J ] V/S . WARD-36(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, ROOM NO.810, 110 SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-03-2019 ITA NO.1878/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 M.P. KEDIA HUF 29, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, WINDSOR HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.15, KOLKATA-70000 [ PAN NO.AADHM 9622 H ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN (POORVA), 8 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 809 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI DEV KUMAR, KOTHARI, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-03-2019 ITA NO.2256/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 M/S SHRAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL HUF, LEVEL-3, CENTRAL PLAZA, C-11, 41, B.B.GANGULY STREET, KOLKATA-700 012 [ PAN NO.AAIHS 7822J ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN (POORVA), 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 3 /BY APPELLANT SHRI P.K. HIMMAT SINGHKA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-03-2019 ITA NO.2077/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 P.K. AGARWAL (HUF) BLOCK-3, FLAT 6C, AVANI OXFORD, 136, JESSORE ROAD, LAKE TOWN KOLKATA-700 055 [ PAN NO.AADHP 0935 Q ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN (POORVA), 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.M. SURANA ADVOCATE & ABHISHEK BANSAL, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-03-2019 ITA NO.1858/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SMT. UMA JARIA H. NO. 2482, SRI SRI KUTIR, SECTOR-79, MOHALI-160055 [ PAN NO.AIIPM 1424 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-48(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATA700 001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUNIL SURANA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-03-2019 ITA NO.1629,1630 & 1639/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 4 JAYA MADHOGARIA C/O S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOUDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-700019 [ PAN NO.AITPM 8644 F ] VIVEK MADHOGARIA C/O S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOUDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-700019 [ PAN NO.BLEPM 6272 L ] SANDEEP MADHOGHARIA (HUF) C/O S.L KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY, AVENUE, KOLKATA-700019 / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATA700 001 INCOME TAX OFFICER WAR-48(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.L. KOCHAR ADVOCATE & SHRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ITA NO.1374/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SURENDRA SHARMA VIKRAM VIHAR, BUNGLOW NO. 29/30, 3 RD FLOOR, 493/B/61, G.T. ROAD (SOUTH), HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO.AUNPS 2017 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-48(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATA700 001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ITA NO.1800/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 5 SHIR SAMIR BAID 3-B, LAL BAZAR STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKAT-700001 [ PAN NO.AEIPB 5692 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 8 TH FLOOR, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA700 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI PARAS NATH KESHARI, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ITA NO.2266/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SMT.PAYAL SARAF CF-265, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-1, KOLKATA-91 [ PAN NO.AACZPA 7421 L ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 50(3),UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, MANIKTOLA CIVIC CENTRE, ULTADANGA, KOLKATA700 054 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ITA NO.2263/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SMT. REKHA PATWARI 3 RD FLOOR, R. NO. 190, METAL MARKET, 157, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, BURRABAZAR, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AFGPP 2964 R ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 36(1), 110, SHANTIPALLY, E.M. BYE PASS, INCOME TAX BUILDING, POORVA, NR. RUBY HOSPITAL, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 6 /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUNIL SURANA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ITA NO. 1375-1376/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHANKAR LAL DARUKA (HUF) 8, PEARY MOHAN MUKHERJEE STREET, BELURMATH HOWRAH- 711202 [ PAN NO.AASHS 8397 G ] SIMA DARUKA 8, PEARY MOHAN MUKHERJEE STREETE, BELURMATH, HOWRAH- 711202 [ PAN NO.APLPD 6688 M ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-48(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, (WEST), KOLKATA700 001 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ITA NO.1859/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 EFFERVESCENT COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., C/O RSVPC & COMPANY, 41A, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, SUITE NO.613, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATKA-17 [ PAN NO.AABCE 4592 R ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 7 ITA NO.2271-2272/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 SHRI VINEET KANODIA 2 ND FLOOR, BD-76, SALT LAKE, KOLKAT-91 [ PAN NO.AISPK 4868 L ] SHRI VISHAL KANODIA 2 ND FLOOR, BD-76, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKAT-91 [ PAN NO.AMMPK 6316 M ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-63(4),AAYKAR BHAWAN, 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, BAMBOO VILLA, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K. TULSIYAN, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ITA NO.1451-1452/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI DILIP SINGHA ROY DEEPSHIKHA, KHANRO SULTANPUR MORE, P.O. MEMARI, BURDWAN- 713146 [ PAN NO.BCGPS 5668 M ] SMT. SIKHA SINGHA ROY DEEPSHIKHA, KHANRO SULTANPUR MORE, P.O. MEMARI, BURDWAN-713146 [ PAN NO.BVUPS 2777 L ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),AAYKAR BHAWAN,, COURT COMPOUND, BURDWAN-713101 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 8 ITA NO.2109 & 2121/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 ALOKE JAIN C/O ADVOCATE PRADIP LAKHOTIA, 2 ND FLOOR, METRO PLAZA, SF ROAD, SILIGURI-734005 [ PAN NO.ACWPJ 1442 R ] SHRI SUNIL KUMAR RANDER C/O ADVOCATE PRADIP LAKHOTIA, 2 ND FLOOR, METRO PLAZA, SF ROAD, SILIGURI-734005 [ PAN NO.ADEPR 8597 A ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PARIBAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PARIBAHANA NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2019 ITA NO.2053/KOL/2018 & ITA NO.1770-1771/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S): 2013-14 & 2014-15 SRI VIKASH GOEL C/O S.C. BAID & ORS. 4, RAJA WOODMUNT STREET, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AGNPG 5765 H ] SMT. RITU GUPTA C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITEIII- 213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 [ PAN NO.AHEPA 1921 B ] RASHMI GUPTA C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON, / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-63(4), AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 107 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(1), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATA-700001 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 9 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKAKTA-69 [ PAN NO.ADOPG 8719 R ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2019 ITA NO.1649/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 PRADEEP KR. PANSARI (HUF) SRI GANGA APARTMENT, 23, GUHA PARK, 3 RD FLOOR, LILUAH, HOWRAH- 711204 [ PAN NO.AALHP 4741 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-48(1), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATA-700 001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2019 ITA NO.2107/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 SMT. BABITA DUGAR BUNGALOW NO.58 VIKRAM VIHAR 493B, G.T. ROAD (SOUTH), HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO.ADMPD 5578 R ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATKA-700001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUNIL SURANA, FCA ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 10 /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2019 ITA NO.2048/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL C/O RAJ SINGHANIA, CENTRAL PLAZA, 41, B.B. GANGULY STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, BOWBAZAR, KOLKATKA-12 [ PAN NO.ACWPA 9714 D ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 7 TH FLOOR, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATG-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2019 ITA NO.2117/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 OM PRAKASH SONI 29B, BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD, KOLKATKA-700 019 [ PAN NO.AJFPS 6196 M ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI UPENDRA NATH RAI (STAFF OF AR) /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2019 ITA NO. 2289/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 SHRUTI DHOOT 10E, RABINDRA SARANI, 29B, 3 RD / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46(4), AAYAKAR ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 11 FLOOR, R.NO.10E, KOLKATA-700 073 [ PAN NO.BDKPD 7473 C ] BHAWAN 3, GOVT. PLACE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI UPENDRA NATH RAI (STAFF OF AR) /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2019 ITA NO.2296 & 2299/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SMT. NEELAM JHUNJHUNWALA 203, 204 BLOCK NO.C/3, 2 ND FLOOR FLOWER VALLEY, 493, G.T. ROAD (SOUTH) SHIBPUR HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO.ADQPB 1787 J ] SMT. NITA JHUNJHUNWALA 203, BLOCK NO.C/3 2 ND FLOOR FLOWR VALLEY 493, G.T. ROAD (SOUTH) SHIBPUR HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO.ACVPJ 5308 D ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN 3, GOVT. PLACE, KOLKATA-700001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI PAWAM MAHARAJ (STAFF OF CA) /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO.1737/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHREE NIWAS LAHOTI L/H OF MOHAN LAL LAHOTI, 171, RAMKRISHNA LANE, SHIBPUR OPP PALLY MATH, HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO.ABAPL 6200 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN 3, GOVT. PLACE, (WEST) KOLKATA-700001 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 12 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO.2298/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SUNIL KUMAR HARBHAJANKA L/H LATE SMT. RAJ KUMARI HARBHAJANKA, 260, UPENDRA CHANDRA BANERJEE ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA [ PAN NO.AASPH 2393 H ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI K.M. RAY, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO.2300/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SMT. SANTOSH MUNDRA 5-B, JUDGES COURT ROAD, ALIPORE, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 027 [ PAN NO.AEWPM 8376 H ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-63(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN AJC BOSE ROAD, BAMBOOVILLA, KOLKATA-700014 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K.TIBREWAL, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO.2301/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 13 ROHIT PATWARI 3 RD FLOOR, R.NO.190, 157, N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.BGLPP 7028 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-700107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI VIKASH SURANA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO. 2132/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF) 10, CLIVE ROW, 6 TH FLOOR, R.NO.IR, RAMPURIA CHAMBER, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.AAGHM 2497 F ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, E.M. BYPASS, KOLKATA- 700107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO.2002/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PREMIER TIE UP PVT. LTD, 301/1, S.M. ALI ROAD, BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700 120 [ PAN NO.AADCP 8205 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 14 /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO.2124/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 NAROTTAMKA TRADING & FINVEST PVT. LTD., 21, BIPIN BEHARI GANGULI STREET, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKAT-700 012 [ PAN NO.AAACN 8662 L ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI N. KEDIA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 ITA NO.2297/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 DILIP KUMAR SANCHETI C/O ADVOCATE PRADIP LAKHOTIA,2 ND FLOOR, METRO PLAZA, SF ROAD, SILIGURI-734005 [ PAN NO.BDKPD 7473 C ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PARIBAHAAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI DHIRAJ LAKHOTIA, A.R /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-03-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-03-2019 /O R D E R THIS SET OF FORTY ONE APPEAL(S) FILED BY THE VARIO US ASSESSEES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15, 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2009-10 ARISE AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) SEPARATE ORDER(S) UPHOLDING T HE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) IDENTICAL ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 15 ACTION TREATING THEIR RESPECTIVE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) / LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS (LTCL) APPEAL-WISE IN SERIATIM TO BE BOGUS UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S) SUMS; APPEAL-WISE/ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS: SL NO. ITA NO. A.Y LTCG/LTCG (RS) 1 2260/K/18 14-15 14,54,268 2 2087/K/18 -DO- 21,05,504 3 2078/K/18 -DO- 19,99,153 4 1878/K/18 -DO- 6,59,336 5 2256/K/18 -DO- 29,77,082 6 2077/K/18 15-16 35,65,575 7 1858/K/18 -DO- 5,29,136 8 1629/K/18 14-15 9,79,512 9 1630/K/18 -DO- 8,38,500 10 1639/K/18 -DO- 12,26,734 11 1374/K/18 -DO- 21,76,266 12 1800/K/18 -DO- 5,75,920 13 2266/K/18 -DO- 14,88,171 14 2263/K/18 -DO- 11,16,602 15 1375/K/18 -DO- 9,15,030 16 1376/K/18 -DO- 9,13,505 17 1859/K/18 -DO- 14,91,456 18 2271/K/18 13-14 11,63,904 19 2272/K/18 -DO- 12,19,648 20 1451/K/18 09-10 17,35,719 21 1452/K/18 -DO- 14,46,370 22 2109/K/18 15-16 32,19,787 23 2121/K/18 -DO- 30,92,316 24 2053/K/18 13-14 15,74,684 25 1770/K/18 14-15 15,27,338 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 16 26 1771/K/18 -DO- 15,25,739 27 1649/K/18 -DO- 13,92,100 28 2107/K/18 15-16 15,50,354 29 2048/K/18 14-15 24,30,000 30 2117/K/18 -DO- 25,81,174 31 2289/K/18 15-16 15,62,840 32 2296/K/18 14-15 15,65,722 33 2299/K/18 -DO- 15,29,373 34 1737/K/18 -DO- 19,96,727 35 2298/K/18 -DO- 25,38,152 36 2300/K/18 -DO- 18,81,518 37 2301/K/18 -DO- 41,40,121 38 2132/K/18 15-16 17,78,760 39 2002/K/18 14-15 5,80,298 40 2124/K/18 -DO- 9,45,682 41 2297/K/18 15-16 32,19,787 2. A COMBINED PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE(S) REVEALS T HAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ASSESSEES LTCG CLAIM AS EXEMPT U/S10(38) IS INVOLVED IN ALL THESE CASE(S). ALL THESE APPEAL(S) ARE THEREFORE DISPOSED OF VIDE ITS INSTANT COMMON ORDER. HEARD ALL ASSESSEES AS WELL AS THE REVENUE REITERAT ING THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THEIR IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDITS ADDITION(S). 3. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE BASIC IDENTICAL FA CT THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE DERIVED THE IMPUGNED LTCG FROM TRAN SFER OF SHARES HELD IN VARIOUS SCRIPTS. THEY FILED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE NAT URE OF BANK STATEMENTS, LEDGER ACCOUNTS, BROKERS DETAILS ALONGWITH THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS OF THE CONCERNED SCRIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) IN ALL CASES DECLINED TREA TED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT SINCE LACKING GENUINENESS / CREDITWORTHINESS. HE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE CONCERNED SCRIPTS PERFORMANCE DURING TH E RELEVANT HOLDING PERIOD, BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANIES, BALANCE-SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ETC., SCRIPT DRICE MOVEMENT TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAD COLLUDED WITH ENTRY OPERATORS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 17 CLAIM THE IMPUGNED BOGUS LTCG AS EXEMPT. HE FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THE DEPARTMENTS INVESTIGATION WING HAD REVEALED A CLIN CHING NEXUS BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE SCRIP ENTITIES, ENTRY OPERATOR S AND ASSESSEES LIKE IN THESE CASES TO BE ENGAGED IN ARTIFICIAL RIGGING OF THE SCRIP PRICE S. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME IN ALL THESE APPEAL(S). LEAD CASE APPEAL ITA NO.2256/KOL/2018 CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION:- 07. FINDINGS & DECISION: 1. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED IN MAKING AN ADDITIO N OF RS.29,69,082/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AFTER AN EXHAUS TIVE DISCUSSION AND ELABORATING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX, HAS HELD THAT THE CLAIM O F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S. 10(38) WAS TO BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL, AND WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FINDINGS, AND THERE IS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT FOR ELABORATION FROM THIS FORUM . IN MY VIEW OF THE FACTS THERE ARE ELABORATE AND DIRECT EVIDENCE TO CLEARLY INDICATE T HAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WERE MERELY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TAKEN F OR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIO US YEAR. IT IS APPARENT THAT, IN THE GRAB OF ALLEGED LTCG, THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.29,69,082/- AND HUGE AMOUNT BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS WITHOUT PAYING A SINGLE RUPE E OF TAX. THE LD.AO HAS VERY CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIG ATION WING, AND HAS RECORDED THE NOTEWORTHY FEATURES OF THE COMPANY WHOSE SHARES WE RE PURCHASED / SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE- INDIVIDUAL. THE ECONOMIC PARAMETERS OF THE SAID COM PANY OVER THE IMPUGNED PERIOD HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, IN THE ANALYSIS. THE RISE A ND FALL OF THE PRICES AS RECORDED HAD BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE LD. AO TO BE ARTIFICIAL AND NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE NORMAL MARKET, AS THE COMPANY HAS NO BUSINESS AT ALL. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO BROUGHT FORTH INFORMATION THAT THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY SEBI HAS ALSO AFTER INVESTIGAT ING SUCH ABNORMAL PRICE INCREASES OF CERTAIN STOCKS INVESTIGATED THE MATTER AND SUSPENDE D TRADING IN CERTAIN SCRIPTS. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PRICES OF THESE SCRIPTS FELL SHARPLY AFTER THE OFFLOADING OF THESE SCRIPTS BY PRE-ARRANGED AND MANIPULATED TRANSACTIONS. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIO NS WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE TO GIVE IT A COLOR OF REAL TRANSACTIONS. 2. I ALSO FIND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APP ELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL POINT TOWARDS THE ELABORATE DOCUMENTATION, MEANING THEREB Y THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED PAPERS RELATING TO APPLICATION FOR THE SHARES, THE ALLOTME NT OF THE SHARES, THE SHARE CERTIFICATES PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE AND THE NECESSARY PAPERS FILED B EFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, WHERE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS A SH AREHOLDER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED PROOF OF AMALGAMATION OF THE COMPANIES WHEREIN THE SHAREHOLDING HAS CHANGED HANDS. IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS PR OVIDED COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT, BANK CONTRACT NOTES AND DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BRO KER BY WAY OF PROOF THAT AN THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, IN MY VIEW OF T HE MATTER, IT IS PRECISELY THIS ELABORATE PAPERWORK THAT STRENGTHENS THE MATTER RELATING TO T HE BOGUS BENEFIT OF THE LTCG, WHICH CLEARLY HAS BEEN SCHEMED, PRE-PLANNED AND EXECUTED WITH MALA FIDE INTELLIGENCE AND PRECISION. THEREFORE ALL THESE PAPERS ARE MERE DOCUMENTS AND N OT ANY EVIDENCE. THE WHOLE GAMUT OF TRANSACTIONS ARE UNNATURAL AND HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS, A ND THEREFORE THE RULES OF SUSPICIOUS TRRNSACTIONS OUGHT TO APPLY IN THE INSTANT CASE. TH ERE ARE GRAVE DOUBTS IN THE STORY PROPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW, NONE OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO BY THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT ARE ENO UGH TO JUSTIFY THE HUMONGOUS GAINS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CAPITAL GAINS,. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW BANKING DOCUMENTS ARE MERE SELF SERVING RECITALS. THE LAWIT1 THE MATT ER OF SELF-SERVING RECITALS HAS BEEN LONG ESTABLISHED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS P MOHANKALA 291 ITR 278, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE MONEY CAME BY W AY OF BANK CHEQUE AND WAS PAID ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 18 THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BANKING TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT BY ITSELF OF ANY CONSEQUENCES. 1/ THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER OF JUSTIFICATION OF RECEIPTS WHICH ARE OF SUSPICIOUS AND DUBIOUS NATURE, IN THE CASE OF CIT D URGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS LAYING DOWN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HELD AS UNDER: 'IN A CASE WHERE A PARTY RELIED ON SELF SERVING RECITALS IN DOCUMENTS, IT WAS FOR THAT PARTY TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS: THE TAXING A UTHORITIES WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY S UCH RECITALS. ' SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER: 'IN VIEW OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDI TED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE TOR ANY PREVIOUS VEER, THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TA X AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSES OF' THAT PREVIOUS VEER IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASS ESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT SATISF ACTORY. IN SUCH A CASE, THERE IS PRIMA FACIE, EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIZ. THE RECEIPT OF M ONEY, AND IF HE FAILS TO REBUT, THE SAID EVIDENCE BEING UN-REBUTTED, CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE.IN THE CASE OF SAJJAN DAS & SONS VS. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 (DELHI), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, WHILE CONSIDE RING A CASE IN WHICH GIFTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS LAID IMPOR TANCE ON THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR FOR MAKING THE GIFT AND HIS IDENTITY AS WELL AS IMPORTA NCE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONE IN DETERMINATION OF GENUINENESS OF GIFT HELD A S UNDER: THAT A MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF THE GIFT AMOUNT T HROUGH BANKING CHANNELS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. SI NCE THE CLAIM OF THE GIFT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS LAY ON HIM NOT ONLY TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON MAKING THE GIFT BUT ALSO HIS CAPACITY TO MAKE A GIFT AND THAT IT HA D ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED AS A GIFT FROM THE DOOR.IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW WHEREVER DOCUMENTS ARE RELIED UPON THEY SHOULD PASS THE TEST OF NORMAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CURSE OF BU SINESS VIZ., HUMAN CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY AND SURROUNDING CIRCUM STANCES. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN IF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED, THE SAME MUST PAS S THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IF THEY DO NOT, THEN ADDI TION JUSTIFIED. RELIANCE ON SUCH MATTERS IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF SMT. PHOOLWATI DEVI 314 ITR (AT) 1 (DEL). 3. IT MUST ALSO BE STATED HERE THAT IN COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX VS NR PORTFOLIO PVT LTD ON 22 NOVEMBER, 2013, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HA S HELD... ... THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. WHEN A FACT IS ALLEGED AND STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ASSESSEE, HE MUST AND SHOULD EXAMINE AND VERIFY, WHEN IN DOUBT OR WHEN THE ASSER TION IS DEBATABLE. NORMALLY A FACTUAL ASSERTION MADE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNLESS FOR JUSTIFICATION AND REASONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FEE LS THAT HE NEEDS/REQUIRES A DEEPER AND DETAILED VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS ALLEGED. THE ASS ESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD COOPERATE AND FURNISH PAPERS, DETAILS AND PARTICULA RS. THIS MAY ENTAIL ISSUE OF NOTICES TO THIRD PARTIES TO FURNISH AND SUPPLY INFORMATION OR CONFIRM FACTS OR EVEN ATTEND AS WITNESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ALSO REFER TO I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FI LE THEIR RESPONSE. WE CANNOT LAY DOWN OR STATE A GENERAL OR UNIVERSAL PROCEDURE OR M ETHOD WHICH SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN VERIFICATION OF FACTS IN REQUIRED. THE MANNER AND MODE OF CONDUCTING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE SAME SHOULD BE JUST, FAIR AND SHOU LD NOT CAUSE ANY HARASSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE OR THIRD PERSONS FROM WHOM CONFIRMATION OR VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED. THE VERIFICATION AND INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE ONE WITH T HE LEAST AMOUNT OF INTRUSION, INCONVENIENCE OR HARASSMENT ESPECIALLY TO THIRD PAR TIES, WHO MAY HAVE ENTER3ED INTO TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ULTIMATE FINDIN G OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD REFLECT DUE APPLICATION OR MIND ON THE RELEVANT FAC TS AND THE DECISION SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE MATERIAL, WHICH IS GERMANE AND WHICH SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED AND EXCLUDE THAT WHICH IS IRRELEVANT. CERTAIN FACTS OR ASPECTS MAY BE NEUTRAL AND SHOULD BE NOTED. THESE SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED BUT TH EY CANNOT BECOME THE BEDROCK OR SUBSTRATUM OF CONCLUSION. THE PROVISIONS OF EVIDENC E ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE, BUT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 19 ASSESSING OFFICER BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, MUST TAKE CARE AND CAUTION TO ENSURE THAT THE DECISION IS REASONABLE AND SATISFIES THE C ANNONS OF EQUITY, FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE IMPARTIALLY AND OBJECTIVELY ANALYZED TO ENSURE THAT THE ADVERSE FINDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHEN RECORDED ARE ADEQUATELY AND DULY SUPPORTED BY MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE AND CAN WITHSTAN D THE CHALLENGE IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABIL ITIES APPLIES. WHAT IS STATED AND THE SAID STANDARD, EQUALLY APPLY TO THE TRIBUNAL AN D INDEED THIS COURT. THE REASONING AND THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN ANY DECISION OR PRONOUNCEM ENT WHILE DEALING WITH THE CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION O F MIND ON THE RELEVANT ASPECTS. WHEN AN ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR TRIES TO AVOID APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT NECESSARILY CREATES DIFFICULT IES AND PREVENTS ASCERTAINMENT OF TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DENIED ADVANTAGE OF THE CONTENTION OR FACTUAL ASSERTION BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IN CASE AN ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY FALLS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DESIRE TO PREVENT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION, AN ADVERSE VIEW S HOULD BE TAKEN. 4. IN THIS CONNECTION, I ALSO WISH TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT BOMBAY BENCH B ITA(NO.614/BOM/87 A.Y. 1983-84) IN THE CASE OF M/S. MONT BLANE PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT. THE HORI'BLE TRIBUNAL HERD THAT THE WORD 'EVIDENCE' AS USED IN SEC. 143(3 ) COVERED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO. THE WORD ' EVIDENCE ' AS USED IN SEC. 143 (3) OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT BE CO NFINED TO DIRECT EVIDENCE. THE WORD 'EVIDENCE' WAS COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH TO COV ER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO. UNDER THE TAX JURISPRUDENCE, THE WORD ' EVIDENCE ' HAD MUCH WIDER CONNOTATIONS. WHILE THE WORD 'EVIDENCE' MIGHT RECALL THE ORAL AND DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE AS MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT THE USE OF WORD ' MATERIAL ' IN SEC.143(3) SNOWED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT BEING A COURT COULD RELY UPON MATERIAL , WHICH MIGHT NOT BE EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA KING AN ORDER' OF ASSESSMENT. COURT OFTEN TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTAIN FACTS WHICH NEED NO T BE PROVED BEFORE THEM. THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 142 AND 143 CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER MAY ALSO ACT ON THE MATERIAL GATHERED BY HIM. THE WARD 'MATERIAL' DEARLY SHOWS T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT FETTERED BY THE TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE LIKE, AND T HAT HE MAY ACT ON MATERIAL WHICH MAY NOT STRICTLY SPEAKING BE ACCEPTED EVIDENCE IN COURT OF LAW. 5. THE HON'BTE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V, DURGA PRASAD MORE[1971] 82 ITR 540 AT PAGES 545- 547 MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILI TIES IN THE FOLLOWING FACT SITUATION :. ... ... IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSI DERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE RE4AL. IN A CASE OF THE PRESENT KIND A PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTA BLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS. OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECI TALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE-OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE T O SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO P UT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY9 OF THE RECIT ALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS.... 6. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW AS DECLARED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) THAT THE TR UE NATURE OF TRANSACTION HAVE TO BE ASCERTAINED IN THE LIGHT OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANC ES. IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT HAS NO APPLICABILI TY IN DETERMINATION OF MATTERS UNDER TAXING STATUTES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS CLEAR T HAT APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL AS EVIDENCED FROM THE INVESTIGATION REPORT. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CHUHAR MAL VS CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT T HE PRINCIPLE OF EVIDENCE LAW ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITIES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, H UMAN PROBABILITY HAS TO BE THE GUIDING ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 20 PRINCIPLE, SINCE THE AO IS NOT FETTERED, BY TECHNIC AL RULES EVIDENCE, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MIL LS V CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CHUHAR MEL V CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHAT WAS MEANT BY SAYING THAT EVIDENCE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO THE PR OCEEDINGS UNDER INCOME-TAX ACT,1961, WAS THAT THE RIGORS OF RULES OF EVIDENCE, CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; BUT THAT DID NOT MEAN THAT WHEN THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE DESIROUS OF INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE ACT, IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM, THEY WERE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT ALL THAT SECTIO N 110 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 DID, WAS 'TO EMBODY A SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF COMMON LAW, JURI SPRUDENCE VIZ, WHERE A PERSON WAS FOUND IN POSSESSING OF ANYTHING, THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT HE WAS NOT ITS OWNER, WAS ON THAT PERSON. THUS, THIS PRINCIPLE COULD BE ATTRACTED TO A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SATISFIES ITS CONDITIONS AND WAS APPLICABLE TO TAXING PROCEEDINGS. 7. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AO THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF LTCG AS MADE BY THE LD. AO COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ' SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS ', AND THEREFORE THE RULES OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS WOULD APPLY TO THE CASE. PAYMENT THROUGH BANKS, PERFORMANCE THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND OTHER SUCH F EATURES ARE ONLY APPARENT FEATURES. THE REAL FEATURES ARE THE MANIPULATED AND ABNORMAL PRIC E OF OFF LOAD AND THE SUDDEN DIP THEREAFTER. THEREFORE, I HAVE TO REACH THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE TRANSACTIONS AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD.AO FALL IN THE REALM OF ' SUSPICIOUS ' AND ' DUBIOUS ' TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. AO HAS THEREFORE NECESSARILY TO CONSIDER THE SURROUNDING C IRCUMSTANCES, WHICH HE INDEED HAS DONE IN A VERY METICULOUS AND CAREFUL MANNER. IN THE CASE O F WIN CHADHA VS CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) IN ITA NO.3088 &: 3107/DEL/200S THE HON'B LE DELHI ITAT 'B'-BENCH HAS OBSERVED, ON 31.12.2010 AS UNDER: 'SUSPICIOUS AND DIBI0US TRASANCTI0N HOW TO BE DEA LT WITH: 6.11, THE TAX LIABILITY IN THE CASES OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS, IS TO BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, SURROUND ING CIRCUMSTANCES, HUMAN CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND NATURE OF INCRIM INATING INFORMATION/ EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH AO. 6.12. IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMAN 89 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT' HAS DEALT WITH THE RELEVANCE OF HUMA N CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCE, BURDEN OF PROOF AND ITS SHIFTING ON THE DEPARTMENT IN CASES OF SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ',,,,. IT IS, NO DOUBT, TRUE THAT IN ALL CASES IN W HICH A RECEIPT IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS INCOME, THE BURDEN LIES ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT IT IS WITHIN THE TAXING PROVISION AND IF A RECEIPT IS IN THE NAT URE OF INCOME; THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT IT IS NOT TAXABLE BECAUSE IT FALLS WIT HIN EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY THE ACT LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE, BUT IN VIEW OF SECT ION 68, WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABO UT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , NOT SATISFACTORY. IN SUCH CASE THERE IS PRIMA FACIE EYID~L1CE AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE, VTZ., THE RECEIPT OF MONEY, AND IF HE FALLS TO REBUT THE SAME, THE SAID EVIDENCE BEING UN- REBUTTED, CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT IL' IS A RE CEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. WHILE CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT, HOWEVER, ACT UNREASONABLY. ... ... HAVING REGARD TO THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLA NT AS DISCLOSED IN HER SWORN STATEMENT AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL ON THE RECORD, AN INFERENCE COULD REASONABLY BE DRAWN THAT THE WINNING TICKETS WERE PURCHASED BY TH E APPELLANT AFTER THE EVENT. THE MAJORITY OPINION AFTER CONSIDERING SURROUNDING CIRC UMSTANCES AND APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM ABOUT THE AMOUNT BEING HER WINNING FROM RACES, WAS NOT GENUINE. IT C OULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNTS HAD BEEN REJECTED ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 21 UNREASONABLY AND THAT THE FINDINGS THAT THE SAID AM OUNTS WERE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM, OTHER SOURCES WAS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HOW TO BE USED 6.13 IT WOULD, AT THIS STAGES, BE RELEVANT TO CONSI DER THE ADMISSIBILITY AND USE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS OPPOSED TO DIRECT EVIDENCE. IT MAY CONSIST OF EVIDENCE AFFORDED BY THE BEARING ON THE FACT TO BE PROVED, OF OTHER AND SUBSIDIARY FACTS, WHICH ARE RELIED ON AS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY RESULT OTHER THAN THE TRUTH OF THE PRINCIPAL FACT. IT IS EVIDENCE OF VARIOUS FACTS, OT HER THAN THE TRUTH OF THE PRINCIPLE FACT. IT IS EVIDENCE OF VARIOUS ARE SO ASSOCIATED WITH TH E FACT IN ISSUE, THAT TAKEN TOGETHER, THEY FORM A CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO AN IN FERENCE OR PRESUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRINCIPAL FACT. IN THE APPRECIATIO N OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE RELEVANT ASPECTS, AS LAID DOWN FROM TIME TO TIME AR E (1) THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED MUST BE ESTABLISHED B Y SUCH EVIDENCE, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER EVIDENCE. (2) THE CIRCUMSTANCES PROVED M9USTE BE OF A CONCLUS IVE NATURE AND NOT TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONTRADICTOR Y TO OTHER EVIDENCE. (3) ALTHOUGH THERE SHOULD BE NO MISSING LINKS IN TH E CASE, YET IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT EVERY ONE OF THE LINKS MUST APPEAR ON THE SURF ACE OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED; SOME OF THESE LINKS MAY HAVE TO INFERRED F ROM THE PROVED FACTS; (4) IN DRAWING THOSE INFERENCES OR PRESUMPTIONS, TH E AUTHORITIES MUST HAVE REGARDED TO THE COMMON COURSE OF NATURAL EVENTS, TO HUMAN CONDUCT AND THEIR RELATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. (5) THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN, WITH EQUAL FAC ILITY, BE RESTORED TO IN PROOF OF A FACT IN ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN PROCEEDING S FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVID ENCE CAN BE MADE USE OF IN ORDER TO PROVE OR DISPROVE A FACT ALLEGED OR IN ISS UE. IN FACT, IN WHATEVER PROCEEDINGS OR CONTEXT INFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO B E DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE OR MATERIALS AVAILABLE OR LACKING, CIRCUMSTANTIAL E VIDENCE HAS ITS PLACE TO ASSIST THE PROCESS OF ARRIVING AT THE TRUTH. 6.14 IT WILL ALSO BE WORTHWHILE TO CONSIDER THE NAT URE OF BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE AO FOR PROVING A FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INCOME T AX PROCEEDINGS. THE QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE TAX LIABILITY BY THE AO ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING REASONABLE AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. I F ASSESSEE IS NOT FORTHCOMING WITH PROPER OR COMPLETE FACTS OR HIS STATEMENT OR EXPLAN ATION IS CONTRADICTORY, DRAWING OF SUITABLE INFERENCES AND ESTIMATION OF FACTS IS INEV ITABLE. COURTS GENERALLY WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH SUCH ESTIMATE OF FACTS, UNLESS THE I NFERENCES OR ESTIMATES ARE PERVERSE OR CAPRICIOUS. 6.15. THE ASSESSEES TECHNICAL CONTENTIONS ABOUT AD MISSIBILITY AND RELIANCE ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE AOS RECORD ARE IN THE NA TURE OF CONTENTIONS CHALLENGING CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITIES IN A COURT OF LAW. WE ARE DEALING WITH A PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION OF ASSESSEES TAX LIABILITY I.E. ASSESS MENT UNDER INCOME TAX ACT RATHER THAN CONDUCTING CRIMINAL OR CIVIL COURT PROCEEDINGS . AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.S. GADGIL (SUPRA) NO LIS IS INVOLVED IN ADJUDICATION OF TAX LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO NEW MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO AFTER THE CIT(A)S SETTING ASIDE ORDER CANNOT BE AC CEPTED. NEW INFORMATION AND MATERIAL DID INDEED COME ON RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, IN A SENSITIVE MATTER LIKE THIS, EVEN A SINGLE CLUE OR REVELATION CAN BE OF GREAT IMPORTANC E. TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS TECHNICAL PLEA WILL AMOUNT TO TAKING A LOPS IDED VIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS. BESIDES, THE JPC HAS UNDERLINED THE IMPORTANCE OF R EPORTS OF INVESTIGATION AGENCIES LIKE CBI DRI, ED WHOSE WERE IN THE OFFING, AS THE R ELEVANT INVESTIGATIONS WERE IN PROCESS. IN VIEW OF THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE DO NOT A CCEDE TO THE ASSESSEES PLEAS IN THIS BEHALF. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND OBJECTIONS I N THIS BEHALF THAT THE MATERIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 22 AVAILABLE ON RECORD WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AND THAT IT CANNOT BE RELIED ON BY THE AO, ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND ARE REJECTED OU TRIGHT..... 8. WHEN THE IMPOSSIBLE IS PROJECTED AS POSSIBLE THR OUGH A PLETHORA OF WELL ARRANGED DOCUMENTS, IT WOULD BE VERY REASONABLE TO REJECT TH E DOCUMENTS OUTRIGHT AS MAKE BELIEVE AND SELF SERVING. IN THE CASE OF USHA CHANDRESH SHAH VS ITO, WARD-19(1)(2), MUMBAI, THE HON'BLE ITAT-F'- BENCH MUMBAI BY THEIR ORDER FOR A .Y 2006-07 DATED 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 HAVE, IN THE OPERATIONAL PORTION ADJUDICATED A S UNDER: [ QUOTE] 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE PERTINENT POINTS ARE THAT ME ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE IMPUG NED SHARES THROUGH OFF MARKET TRANSACTION. THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS NOT PAID BY CHE QUE, BUT IT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFIT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SMALL DIFFERENCE OF RS.324/- WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAI D BY WAY OF CASH. IT IS .,(SO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ALLEGED SPECULATION TRANSACTION CARRI ED OUT EARLIER TO THE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF PRIME CAPITAL MARKETS LTD WAS ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED IN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION. ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T POSSESS COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICATES OR COPIES OF SHARE TRANSFER FORMS. THE , BROKER M/S KH ANDELWAL & CO., HAS EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO FURNISH COPIES OF CONTRACT NOTES AVAIL ABLE WITH IT AND ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE TRANSACTIONS O F PURCH85E OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION WAS AN OFF MARKET TRANSACT ION, THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE. THE SETA S HARES WERE EARLIER HELD BY M/S BRIGHTSUN MERCHANTS (P) LTD .AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED T HE SHARES FROM THEM. THE NOTICE ISSUED TO M/S BRIGHTSUN MERCHANTS (P) LTD WAS RETURNED UNSERV ED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK ' UNKNOWN '. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED THAT THE NAME OF THE COMPANY WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED BY THE AO AS M/S BRIGHTSUNS (P)LT D AND HENCE THE NOTICE GOT RETURNED. BUT THERE IS NOT COMMENT ABOUT THE ADDRESS, MEANING THEREBY, THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS ONLY AND HENCE THE SLIGHT VARIATION IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY WOULD NOT NORMALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. HENCE THE FACT THAT T HE NOTICE WAS RETURNED BACK ONLY SHOWS THAT THE SELLER OF THE SHARES COULD NOT BE IDENTIFI ED. ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS WOULD SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE CROSS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. ONE MORE POINT TO BE NOTED HERE IS THAT THE SP ECULATION TRANSACTIONS CAN BE ENTERED ONLY PAYMENT OF MARGIN MONEY. BUT THE DETAILS OF SAID PA YMENT ARE NOT AVAILABLE. WITH REGARD TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE AO RELATION TO MARGIN MONEY , THE BROKER M/S D,K. KHANDEJWAL & CO HAS REPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES OF M/S PRIME CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECULATION TRANSACTIONS. THUS, IT I S SEEN THAT THE QUESTION OF KEEPING MARGIN MONEY FOR SPECULATION TRANSACTIONS REMAINS UNANSWER ED BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE SHARE BROKER CITED ABOVE. FURTHER THE SPECULATION T RANSACTION IS ALSO CLAIMED TO BE AN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION, WHICH FURTHER CASTS SHADOW OF D OUBT OVER THE CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHAS ED THE SHARES IN PHYSICAL FORMATION MAY, 2004, SHE CHOSE TO D-MAT THE SAME ONLY IN JUNE 2005 , JUST TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO ITS SALE, THE SHARES WERE SOLD THROUGH A SHARE BROKER NAMED SANJU KABRA, WHO IS INDICTED SEBI FOR RIGGING THE PRICES OF PENNY STOCK SHARES. IT IS PERTINENT T O NOTE THAT THE SHARE PRICES OF M/S PRIME CAPITAL MARKETS LTD WENT FROM RS.5, 17 (MAY, 2004) TO RS.279,50 (SEP., 2005). THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY REASONS OR AT-LEAST STOCK MAR KET NEWS TO SUPPORT: THE ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE PRICES OF THE ABOVE SAID SHARES. THE FINANCI AL STATEMENTS OF THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY WERE ALSO NOT PRODUCED. THOUGH M/S PRIME CAPITAL MA RKETS LED HAS CONFIRMED THE ENTRIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASES M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE NAME OF PURCHASER TO WHOM THE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE THE TAX AUTHORITIES HA VE APPLIED THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES EXPLAINED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF SUMATI DAYAL AND DURGA PRASED MORE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 23 (SUPRA) TO DISBELIEVE THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITA L GAINS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES WAS NOT APPLIE D BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI AVINOSH KANTILAL JAIN (SUPRA) AND MR. SHYAM R PAWAR (SUPRA). HENCE, IN OUR VIEW) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE AB OVE SAID DECISIONS, WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION D ATED 04.1.2011 RENDERED BY ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF HARESH WIN CHADDHA VS. DDIT, WHEREIN TH E TRIBUNAL HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION IN LAW THAT THE AO IS SUPPO SED TO DISCHARGE AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN TO ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY BY DIRECT EVIDENCE ONLY AN D TO ESTABLISH THE EVASION BEYOND DOUBT AS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER IT WAS HELD THAT: THE AO CAN ASSESS ON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, HUM AN CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND NATURE OF INCRIMINATING INFORMATI ON / EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 13. IN THE CASE OF SMT. JAMNADEVI AGRAWAL (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL ON THE REASONING THAT NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SA ID ORDER WOULD SHOW THAT THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE HAD CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSE ES IN THE GROUP HAVE PURCHASED AND SOLD SHARES OF SIMILAR COMPAT1IES THROUGH THE SAME BROKE R. FURTHER THE PURCHASE PRICES AND SALE PRICES WERE SUPPORTED BY PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN AT THE RATES PREVAILING ON THE RESPECTIV E DATES. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH THE FURTHER HELD THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (SUPRA) W AS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI MUKESH RATILAL MAROLIA (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICATES TO SHOW THAT THE SHARES WERE IN FACT TRANSFERRED TO THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT. FURTHER THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE PRICES OF SHARES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE C ASE BEFORE HIGH COURT WERE MANIPULATED. 14. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PRODUCE THE COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF SHARE TRANSFER FORMS. TH E TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF SHARES COULD NOT BE CROSS VERIFIED. THE SHARES OF M/S PRIME CAPITAL MARKETS LTD WAS DECLARED AS PENNY STOCK BY SEBI AND THE BROKER SANAJU KABRA, THROUGH WHOM THE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INDICATED FOR MANIPULATING THE PRICES OF PENNY STOCK SHARES. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY APPLIED THE TEST O F HUMAN PROBABILITIES TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE NOTICE THAT THE M9UMBAI D BENCH HAS CONSIDER ED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR D JAIN IN ITA NO.3192/MUM/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15-06-2011, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF MAKING SPECULATION GAINS ON THE REASONING THAT SPECULATION TRANSACTIONS COULD N OT HAVES BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WITHOUT PAYING MARGIN MONEY TO THE BROKER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND CONSEQUENTL Y THE CLAIM OF SALE OF SHARES WAS ALSO REJECTED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT, IN THE DECI SIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM OF SPECULATION PROFITS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBU NAL. IN YET ANOTHER CASE OF SHRI ARAVING M KARIYA CONSIDERED BY A BENCH OF MUMBAI ITAT, THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES WAS APPLIED TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF PROFIT REALIZED ON S ALE OF PENNY STOCKS. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE ONUS TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE S TO CONVINCINGLY SHOW THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD AT THE PRICES CLAIMED ALWAY S LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE GUWAH ATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. JASVINDER KAUR (357 ITR 638) 16. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN SUPPORT OF BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. [UNQUOTE] ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 24 9. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED IN THE CASE OF SOMNATH M AINI VS ITO (226) 100 TTJ 917 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF ITAT HELD THAT IF F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRANT THAT IT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIE S, TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE NON GENUINE. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS BRIEFLY STATED ARE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCU RRED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER TH E VDIS, 1997, AMOUNTING TO RS.19,87,705 AND ALSO THERE WAS A SHORT-TERM CAPITA L GAIN NEAR TO THIS AMOUNT OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.20,36,700 RESULTI NG INTO NET CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.48,995. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF RECORD FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT IN THE CASE OF A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE SAME ASSESSEE SHRI D.C. MAINI, IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, SIMILAR EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN A LO NG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.11,59,066 HAD BEEN INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE O F GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER THE VDIS AND SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RSW.11,75,1 00 RESULTING INTO A NET GAIN OF RS.16,034. ON GOING THROUGH THE NATURE OF TRANSACTI ONS, THE AO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE MADE FURTHER INQUIRY THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAD P URCHASED 45,000 SHARES OF M/S ANKUR INTERNATIONAL LTD. AT VARYING RATES FROM RS.2 ,06 TO RS.3.1 PER SHARE AND SOLD THEM WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF SIX-SEVEN MONTHS AT THE RATE VARYING FROM RS.47.75 TO RS.55. THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED THROUGH A BROKER MUNISH ARORA & CO. AND SOLD THROUGH ANOTHER BROKER M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. THE AO TOOK BY SURPRISE THE ASTRONOMICAL RISE IN SHARES PRICE OF A COMPANY FROM RS.3 TO RS.55 AND STARTED FURTHER INQUIRY. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO BOTH THE BROKERS FROM WHOM SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD AND STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. THE AO ALSO ANALYZED THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S ANKUR INTERNATIONAL LTD. T O JUSTIFY AS TO HOW THE SHARE PRICE OF A COMPANY CAN GO UP FROM A MERE RS.3 TO RS.55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF SIX TO SEVEN MONTHS TIME. THE AO MADE DETAILED AND EXTRANEOUS E XERCISE OF FINDING THE FUNDAMENTAL OF THE SHARE OF THE COMPANY BY DIFFEREN T METHODS AND CONCLUDED THAT THESE SHARES WERE NOT GENUINE AND TRANSACTIONS WERE SO ARRANGED SO AS TO COVER UP THE LOSS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY ONLY. THE AO ALSO RECORDED THE FINDING THAT TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE AT LUDHIANA WHERE ALSO THE SHARE PRICE OF THE COMPANY IS QUOTED BUT MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE SHARE QUOTED WAS RS .17 BUT THAT WAS ONLY IN JULY, 1997, I.E. LONG BEFORE THE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S S/.K. SHARMA & CO. IN THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1998. THE AO ALSO RECORDED THE FINDING THAT ALTHOUGH THE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED IN THE NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEY WERE STILL LYING IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE MUCH AFTER THE SALE T O M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND T HAT BOTH THE BROKERS FROM WHOM THE SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD WERE CALLED UNDER SECTION 31 BY THE AO. BOTH HAVE CONFIRMED THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF SAID S HARES. OTHER ASPECT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RAISED BY THE AO WAS NOT DISCUSSE D BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT SHARES OF A COMPANY GO UP SO HIGH IN FEW MONTHS TIME. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TOOK US THROUGH VARIOUS PAGES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN SALE BILL OF THE S HARES WITH THE SAID M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. WERE ALSO FILED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD AT LUDHIANA WHEN ACTUALL Y STOCK EXCHANGE WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL A FACT WHICH IS ALSO RECORDED BY THE A O. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SHARES HAVE BE EN SOLD TO M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. ON 9 TH FEB., 1998 AND 23 RD MARCH, 1998, WHEREAS FROM THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM 31 ST MARCH, 1988 TO 27 TH JULY, 1998, MEANING THEREBY THAT HAD THE TRANSACTI ONS BEEN GENUINE, PAYMENT COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN ONE GO BY S./K. SHARMA & CO. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THA T ANY SUCH TYPE OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THESE TYPES OF COMPANY OPERATING ON STO CK EXCHANGES PAYMENTS ARE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 25 RECEIVED IN PIECEMEAL WHEREAS IN NORMAL MARKET SHAR E TRANSACTIONS, CONTRACT NOTES ARE ISSUED BY THE BROKER AND PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED IN O NE GO. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO ARGUED THAT AS PER THE STATEMEN T OF S.K. SHARMA & CO. RECORDED AT THE TIME OF INQUIRY, HE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND IDENTITY OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD. ORDINARI LY, WHEN BROKERS ARE ENQUIRED ABOUT SHARE TRANSACTIONS, THEY KEEP PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FORM, WHOM SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, S.K. SHARMA & CO. FAILED TO PROVIDE THE NAMES OF PU RCHASES OF THE SHARES AND IDENTITY OF THE PURCHASERS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEANED AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IN THE SHARE MARKET, SHARE PRICE DOES NOT MOVE ACCORDING T O THE FUNDAMENTALS OF A COMPANY. THEY GO UP AND DOWN AS PER SENTIMENTS PREVAILING AT THAT TIME. TO CONTROVERT, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , HE ARGUED THAT SHARE PRICES ARE QUOTED AT JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE AND WERE QUOTED ON THE RELEVANT DATE OF SALE AT THE SAME PRICE ON WHICH SHARES WERE SOLD TO M/S S.K. SH ARMA & CO. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTROVERTED H IS ARGUMENT BY SAYING THAT VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS ON THE RELEVANT DATES IS ONL Y 600 SHARES ON 9 TH FEB., 1998 AND 1000 SHARES ON 23 RD MARCH, 1998 WHEREAS NUMBER OF SHARES INVOLVED IN T HE TRANSACTIONS WITH S.K. SHARMA & CO. ARE 45000 SHARE S. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, GOING THROU GH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT M/S ANKUR INTERNATIONAL LT D., ALTHOUGH IT IS A QUOTED COMPANY, ITS SHARES WERE NOT BEING TRANSACTED AT LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE ATE, THE RELEVANT TIME. SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD THROUGH THE BROKERS AN D PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CHEQUE ON DIFFERENT DATES AS PER THE STATEMENT OF A CCOUNT OF M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE FROM START OF THE PURCHASE OF SH ARES AT THE RATE OF RS.3 TO THE SALE OF SHARES AT RS.55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME AND SHARES BEING N OT, QUOTED AT LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE WAY IN WHICH DIFFERENT, INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS HA VE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BROKERS AND NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE RECORDS OF THE BROKERS AND THE SHARES REMAINING IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE EVEN LONG AFTER THE SALE OF THE SHARES DOES NOT STA ND THE TEST OF PROBABILITIES. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, THESE TYPES OF COMPANIES FUNCTION IN THE CAPITAL MARKET WHOSE SALE PRICE IS MANIPULATED TO ASTRONOMICAL HEIGHT ONLY TO CREATE THE ARTIFICIAL TRANSACTION IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL GAIN. SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER FROM THE NORMAL SHARE MARKET TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE ORDINARILY CARRIED OUT. TAKING ALL THE STEPS TOGETHER, FINAL CONCLUSION DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE HELD AS UNDER: IT IS A STORY THAT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH HUMAN PROBA BILITIES. IT IS STRANGE THAT HIGH COURT FOUND FAULT WITH THE TRIBUNAL FOR NOT SWALLOW ING THAT STORY. IF THAT STORY IS FOUND TO BE UNBELIEVABLE AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOUND AND IN OUR OPINION, RIGHTLY THAT THE DECISIONS REMAINS THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SA LE PROCEEDED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE HIS MONEY. IT IS SURPRISING THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS FOUND FAUL T WITH THE ITO FOR NOT EXAMINING THE WIFE AND THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PROV ING THE DEPARTMENTS CASE. ALL THAT WE CAN SAY IS THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS IGNORED THE F ACTS OF LIFE. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT, THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A SUPERFICIAL VIEW OF THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE DEPARTMENT. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ONLY GOT SWAYED BY THE ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 131 TO BOTH THE BROKERS FROM WHOM SHARES WERE PURCH ASED AND SOLD AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE OVE RLOOKING THE MATERIAL GATHERED BY THE AO FROM THE STATEMENTS RECORDED OF BROKER M/S S.K. SH ARMA & CO. AND THE OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS OF JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE IS ONLY 600 SHARES AND 1000 SHARES. PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE B ROKERS ONLY IN INSTALLMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF 6-7 MONTHS. IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN TRANSACTIONS AR E THROUGH CHEQUES, IT LOOKS LIKE REAL TRANSACTION BUT AUTHORITIES ARE PERMITTED TO LOOK B EHIND THE TRANSACTIONS AND FIND OUT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 26 MOTIVE BEHIND TRANSACTIONS. GENERALLY, IT IS EXPECT ED THAT APPARENT IS REAL BUT IT IS NOT SACROSANCT. IF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRANT T HAT IT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES, TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE, IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT SHARE PRICE OF A WORTHLESS COMPANY CAN GO FROM RS.3 TO RS.55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME. MERE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE AND RECEIPT BY CHEQUE DOES N OT. RENDER A TRANSACTION GENUINE. CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS CREATED TO OPERATE IN A REAL W ORLD AND NOT THAT OF MAKE BELIEF. FACTS OF THE CASE ONLY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THESE TRANSACT IONS ARE NOT GENUINE AND MAKE BELIEVE ONLY TO OFFSET THE LOSS INCURRED ON THE SALE OF JEWELLER Y DECLARED UNDER VDIS. IN CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE I MPUGNED ADDITION. WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED. [UNQUOTE] 10. MOREOVER, ALL THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT FALL FLAT IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN A DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY BIM ALCHAND JAIN VS. PR. CIT BY THEIR ORDER DATED 10 TH APRIL, 2017 HAVE UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE ITGAT, NAGPUR BENCH DATED 18.07.2016 IN ITA NO.61/NAG/2013 IN SANJAY BIMALCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD-4(2), NAGP UR, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE FACTS EMERGENT IN T HE CASE, AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS CLAIMS WERE TO BE TREATED AS FICTITIOUS AND BOGUS. BOGUS LTCG FROM PENNY STOCKS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TENDERED COGENT EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SHARES IN AN UNKNOWN COMPANY WORTH RS.5 HAD JUMPED TO RS.485 IN NO TIME. THE FANTASTIC SALE PRICE WAS NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE AS THE RE WAS NO ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE PRICE RISE. THE ASSESSEE HAD INDULGED I N A DUBIOUS SHARE TRANSACTION MEANT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE GARB OF L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE GAIN HAS ACCORDINGLY TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED CREDIT U/ S. 68. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AO, AND I CONFIRM THE SAME, HOLDING THE CLAIM OF LTCG OF RS.29,69,082 /- TO BE BOGUS. AS A NATURAL COROLLARY, I ALSO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.8,000;- AS MADE BY THE LD. AO. THEREFORE THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NUMBERING 2 TO 6 STANDS DISMISSED. 4. THIS LEADS ALL THESE ASSESSEES AGREED. I HAVE GI VEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL CONTENTION. THERE CAN HARDLY BE ANY DISPUT E THAT ASSESSEE HAVE PLACED ON RECORD THEIR IDENTICAL PAPER BOOK(S) COMPRISING OF RELEVANT PURCHASED BILLS OF SHARES, ALLOTMENT, CERTIFIED COPIES, CONTRACT NOTES, BROKE RAGE DETAILS ETC. I PUT UP A SPECIFIC QUERY AS TO WHETHER ANY OF ENTRY OPERATORS SEARCHED OR SURVEY HAS QUOTED THESE ASSESSEES NAMES OR NOT BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTH ORITIES. THERE IS NO SUCH MATERIAL IN THE CASE FILE INDICATING SEARCH AS STATEMENT. I FIND THAT THIS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN ITA NO. 1918/KOL/2018 IN SMT. SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA VS. ITO DECIDED ON 04.01.2019 HAS DELETED SIMILAR BOGUS LTCG VIDE FOLL OWING DETAILED DISCUSSION IN PARA 3 TO 5 AS UNDER:- 3. I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVA L CONTENTIONS. IDENTICAL PAPER BOOK(S) COMPRISING OF RELEVANT PURCHASE BILLS OF SHARES, AL LOTMENTS CERTIFICATES, CONTRACT NOTES, BROKERAGES DETAILS LEDGER, DEMAT STATEMENT ETC., ST AND PERUSED. MR. BHATTACHERJYA VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT ALL THES E ASSESSEES HAVE ACTED IN COLLUSION WITH VARIOUS ENTRY OPERATORS FOR AVAILING THE IMPUGNED L TCG ENTRIES CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT S. ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 27 10(38)OF THE ACT. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTS BOTH THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES ACTION SERIOUSLY DOUBTING GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAINS MORE PART ICULARLY AS ANALYSIZED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER SCRIP PRICE MOVEMENT IN STOCK EXCHANGE , PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE-SHEET AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. MR. BHATTACHERJYAS CASE I S THAT THE IMPUGNED LTCG DERIVED FROM SALE OF CONTRACT SCRIP WHICH HAS NOT SEEN ANY PROFI TABLE BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE RELEVANT HOLDING PERIOD WHICH DEFIES ALL COMMERCIAL PRUDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY TREATED AS NON- GENUINE BOTH IN ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS LOWER APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. HE QUOTES CASE LAW OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMANN. 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) AND CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) VARIOUS TRIBUNAL DECISI ONS AS WELL AS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS JUDGMENTS ADDING SIMILAR SUMS TO BE UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDITS ARE ALSO CITED IN SUPPORT. 4. I FIND NO MERIT IN EITHER OF THE REVENUES ABOVE STATED SUBMISSIONS. IT EMERGES THAT THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN SANJAY M EHTA VS. ACIT ITA NO.1089/KOL/2018 DECIDED ON 28.09.2018 HAS DELETED IDENTICAL ADDITIO N OF LTCG TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS REGARDING THE VERY SCRIP AS FOLLOWS:- 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO R IVAL CONTENTIONS. CASE FILE AS WELL AS A COMPILATION OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT STAND PERUSE D. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE EMPHASIZES TIME AND AGAIN THAT THE I NSTANT ISSUE OF BOGUS LTCG HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH A SSESSMENT AS WELL AS LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RAISED PERTAINING TO ARTIFICI AL MANIPULATION OF SHARE PRICES IN BOTH M/S UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. & SHARP TRADING FINAN CE LTD. WE FIND NO FORCE IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENT. THIS TRIBUNAL CO-ORDINA TE BENCHS DECISION IN ITA 2394/KOL/2017 PRAKASH CHAND BHUTORIA VS. ITO DECIDED ON 27.06.2018 FOR AY 2014-15 ITSELF UPHOLDS SUCH A SHARE PRICES INCREAS E TO BE GENUINE QUA THE ABOVE FORMER ENTITY AS UNDER:- 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 31,62,372/- FROM SALE OF ONCE SCRIPS I.E. UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING FACTS: DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF SHARE FOR LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN F.Y.2013-14 (A.Y.2014-15): 1. I STATE THAT I HAD PURCHASED 100 EQUITY SHARES OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. ON 20.01.2012 FROM UNIGLORY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. PINNACLE VINTRAD E LTD. WAS MERGED WITH UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND THERE WAS CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. PURSUANT TO SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT SANCTIONED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY. 2. PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AFORESAID 100 EQUITY OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. WAS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE TAMILNAD MERCANTILE LTD. BANK CHEQUE NO. 736027. 3. BANK STATEMENT OF TAMILNAD MERCANTILE LTD. BANK REF LECTING PAYMENT (CHEQUE NO. 736027) FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID INVESTMENT IN EQUI TY SHARES OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. IS ENCLOSED (HIGHLIGHTING THE SAID ENTRY). ANNEXURE-I. 4. THE EQUITY SHARES OF UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. WERE ALLO TTED PURSUANT UPON MERGER OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. WITH UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. PU RSUANT TO SANCTION OF SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY, I WAS ISSUED 91000 EQUITY SHARES OF UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. IN LIEU OF MY SHAREHOLDING IN PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. THE RELEVANT GIST OF THE SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT SANCTIONED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS COMMUNICATED BY THE COMPANY TO THE BOMBAY STOCK EXC HANGE VIDE LETTER DATED 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. A COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DOWNLOADE D FROM BSE WEBSITE IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. I ALSO ENCLOSE UNNO INDUSTRIE S LTD. LETTER DATED 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 AND 7 TH MARCH, 2013 COMMUNICATING THE ISSUANCE OF SHARES I N LIEU SHARES OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. UPON SANCTION OF SCHEME OF ARRANGEMEN T BY THE HONBLE COURT. ANNEXURE II ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 28 5. AS THE EQUITY SHARES OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. PURC HASED WERE NOT LISTED, HENCE NO CONTRACT NOTES WERE ISSUED. HOWEVER, COPY OF BILL I NDICATING PURCHASE OF SAID EQUITY SHARES IS ENCLOSED. ANNEXURE III 6. EQUITY SHARES OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD., WERE DIREC TLY PURCHASED FROM UNIGLORY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 209, VIRESHWAR CHAMBERS, M.G. ROAD, NERA SHAN TALKIES VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400057. 7. EQUITY SHARES OF PINNACLE VINTRADE LTD. WERE PURCHA SED IN PHYSICAL FORM. 8. I HAVE THREE DEMAT ACCOUNTS AS FOLLOWS- A) NAME OF DP- ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LTD. (DP ID NO. 12034500) DEMAT ACCOUNT NO. 1203450000003128 ADDRESS OF DP-TRINITY, 7 TH FLOOR, 226/1, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020. DP ACCOUNT OPENED ON-31.08.2004 B) NAME OF DP- GUINESS SECURITIES LTD. (DP ID NO. IN302898) DEMAT ACCOUNT NO. 10350406 ADDRESS OF DP-GUINESS HOUSE, 18, DESHPRIYA PARK ROA D, KOLKATA-700026. DP A/C OPENED ON-25.05.2013 C) NAME OF DP- TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD. (DP ID NO. IN303069) DEMAT ACCOUNT NO. 10051996 ADDRESS OF DP-PEARL TOWERS DPS CELL, AC 16, III FLO OR, II AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600040. 9. DEMAT STATEMENTS OF M/S ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LTD. A ND GUINESS SECURITIES LTD. FOR F.Y. 2013-14 AND 2014-15 IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE ENCLOSED. ANNEXURE IV. 10. THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. WERE SUBMITTED FOR DEMATERIALIZATION ON 01.04.2013 AND CREDITED TO MY DEMAT A/C NO. 1203450 000003128 WITH M/S ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LTD. (DP ID NO. 12034500) ON 12.04.2013 (91 000 SHARES). DETAILS OF SALE OF SHARE FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14(A.Y.2014- 15): 1. THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. ARE L ISTED AT BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE (BSE), A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA SINCE L AST SO MANY YEARS AND EVEN DURING THE TIME OF SALE BY ME. THE SECURITY CODE OF THE SAID EQUITY SHARES AT BSE IS 519273 AND ISIN NO. IS INE 142N0 1023. 2. EQUITY SHARES OF UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. WERE SOLD ON BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE THROUGH SEBI REGISTERED STOCK BROKER ASHIKA STOCK BROKING L TD. AND GUINESS SECURITIES LTD. WHOSE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER: A) NAME: ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LTD. ADDRESS: TRINITY, 7 TH FLOOR, 226/1, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020. CONTACT NO. 033 22839952. B) NAME: GUINESS SECURITIES LTD. ADDRESS: GUINESS HOUSE, 18, DESHPRIYA PARK ROAD, KO LKATA-700026 CONTACT NO. 033 30015555. 3. CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED REGARDING SALE OF EQUITY SHAR ES OF UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. ON BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE BY SEBI REGISTERED BROKERS- A SHIKA STOCK BROKING LTD. AND GUINESS SECURITIES LTD. ARE ENCLOSED. ANNEXURE V. 4. THE RELEVANT DEMAT ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF ASHIKA STO CK BROKING LTD. AND GUINESS SECURITIES LTD. REFLECTING THE DEBIT OF SHARES OF U NNO INDUSTRIES LTD. UPON SALE ARE ENCLOSED. (ENTRIES HIGHLIGHTED). ANNEXURE VI . ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 29 5. THE LEDGER OF THE BROKERS OF ASHIKA STOCK BROKING L TD. AND GUINESS SECURITIES LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 ARE ENCLOSED. ANNEXURE VII. 6. TAMILNAD MERCANTILE LTD. BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING THE RECEIPTS OF SALE CONSIDERATION FROM THE SEBI REGISTERED STOCK BROKERS (HIGHLIGHTIN G THE SAID ENTRIES) IS ENCLOSED. ANNEXURE VIII. 7. OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION MONEY OF RS. 3151423.00 F ROM UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. A SUM OF RS. 3150000.00 HAS BEEN INVESTED IN EQUITY SHARE S OF GLOW DIAM DESIGNS PVT. LTD. ALL THE EVIDENCES WERE ATTACHED AS ANNEXURES AS STA TED ABOVE. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DID NOT REFER TO ANY OF THESE EVIDENCES. INSTEAD AT PARA 6 AND 7 HE CONCLUDED HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF THIS PARTIC ULAR SCRIP I.E. UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE SCRIP) WERE EXAM INED IN WHICH SHARES WERE SOLD IN JUNE/AUGUST, 2013 AT THE PRICE OF RS. 31,62,379/- A ND PURCHASED RS. 1,00,000/- I.E. A HUMONGOUS RISE OF OVER 3100% OVER A VERY SHORT PERI OD OF JUST 24 MONTHS. THESE FACTS DEMANDED A DEEPER STUDY OF THE PRICE MOVEMEN TS AND SHARE MARKET BEHAVIOR OF THE ENTITIES INVOLVED IN TRADE, OF THE SCRIP AS THE SHARE PRICE MOVEMENTS AND THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE BENEFICIARIES WERE BEYOND HUMAN PROBA BILITIES. THUS A DEEPER STUDY WAS NEEDED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS WE RE GENUINE INVESTMENT TRANSACTION OF SHAM ONES AND COLORABLE DEVICE ONLY TO CONVERT THE UNACCOUNTED CASH INTO TAX EXEMPT. 7. APART FROM THIS, THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA VARIOUS ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE ON PROJECT BASIS, WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO THE UNEARTHING OF HUGE SYNDICATE OF ENTRY OPERATORS, SHARE BROKERS AND MONEY LENDER INV OLVED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS. IT HAS COME TO THE LIGHT THAT LARGE SCALE MANIPULATION HAS BEEN DONE IN MARKET PRICE OF SHOWN OF CERTAIN COMPANIES LISTED IN THE BSE BY CER TAIN BENEFICIARY IS UTILIZED TO PURCHASE SHARES OF SUCH COMPANY AT A VERY HIGH ARTI FICIALLY INFLATED MARKET PRICE. SOME OF THE LISTED COMPANIES DIRECTLY OR IN DIRECTL Y OWNED BY OPERATORS AND WHOSE SHARES PRICE HAVE BEEN APPARENTLY MANIPULATED BY TH E SYNDICATE OF OPERATORS. OUT OF THE ABOVE ENQUIRY MADE BY DIT(INV.), KOLKATA HAS ES TABLISHED THAT ONE OF THE MAIN MANIPULATED COMPANY WHICH YOU HAD AVAILED IS ALSO U NDER THIS SYNDICATE. HENCE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT SHARP TRADING COMPANY IS ONE OF THE MAIN MANIPULATED COMPANY (PENNY LISTED) TO CONVERT UNACCOUNTED CASH OF BENEF ICIARY THROUGH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH CLAIM A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION. 7. THEREAFTER THE AO MADE AN ADDITION UNDER 68 OF T HE ACT. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER AN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT, THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION COMES WITH IN THE AMBIT OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE, THE RULES OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION WOULD APPLY TO THE CASE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PAYMENTS THROUGH BANK OF PROCESSING OF TRA NSACTION THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND OTHER SUCH FEATURES ARE ONLY APPARENT FEATURES AND THAT T HE REAL FEATURE ARE THE MANIPULATION AND ABNORMAL PRICE RAISE AND THE SUDDEN DIP THEREAFTER. BASED ON SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF BHAG CHAND CHABRA (HUF) VS. ITO, IN I.T.A. NO. 3088& 3107/2007 DATED 31.12.2010, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 8. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AO DEMONSTRATES T HAT THIS ADDITION WAS MADE MERELY ON SUSPICION AND IN A ROUTINE AND MECHANICAL MANNER. THIS IS C LEAR FROM THE FACT THAT THE AO REFERS TO SOME SHARP TRADING COMPANY AS ONE OF THE MAIN ,MANIPULATED COMPANY AND WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SOLD SCRIPS IN UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. THE AO REFERS TO VARIOUS ENQUIRIES ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 30 MADE BY THE DIRECTORS OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA ON P ROJECT BASIS AND THAT THIS RESULTED INTO UNEARTHING OF A HUGE SYNDICATE OF ENTRY OPERATORS A ND SHARE BROKERS AND MONEY LENDERS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S. THE REPORT AS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT AND THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE DIT (INV.), KOLKATA E TC HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ANY DOCUMENT RELIED UPON BY THE A O FOR MAKING AN ADDITION HAS TO BE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME. IN THIS CASE, GENERAL STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MA DE BY THE AO AND THE ADDITION IS MADE BASED ON SUCH GENERALIZATIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH ANY OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN THE INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE DIT(INV. ), KOLKATA. EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM THIRD PARTIES CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING A COPY OF THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT T HE SAME. 9. THE AO FURTHER RELIES ON THE SHOP INCREASE OF 3 1000% OF THE VALUE OF SHARES OVER THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS. THOUGH THIS IS HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS , IT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS STATED THAT SUSPICION HOW EVER STRONG CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING AN ADDITION. THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE AS SESSEE LISTED ABOVE PROVES HIS CASE AND THE AO COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME BY BRINGING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY THE DIT (INV.), KOLKATA A ND THE REPORT IS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THIS BENCH. 10. I NOW DISCUSS THE CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, KOLKATA-III VS. SMT. SHREYASHI GANGULI REPORTE D IN [2012] (9) TMI 1113 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.. TRIBUNAL IS PERVERSE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 6 8 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY IGNORING THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE LD. TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AND HEARING CAME TO A FACT FINDING WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE TRANSACTION S INCE THE SELLING BROKER WAS SUBJECTED TO SEBIS ACTION. HOWEVER, THE DEMAT ACCOUNT GIVEN THE STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS FROM 01.04.2004 TO 31.03. 2005 I.E. RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL (2005-06) ARE BEFORE U S. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE TRANSACTION AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE AS PER NORMS UNDER CONTROLLED BY THE SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX, BROKERAGE SERVICE TAX AND CESS, WH ICH WERE ALREADY PAID. THEY WERE COMPLIED WITH. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANK. THERE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE OVER THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS AS IT WERE THROUGH DEMAT FORMAT. HENCE, WE AGREE WITH THE GIVEN FINDINGS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ACCEPTING THE TRANSACTIONS AS GENU INE TOO. IN VIEW OF THE FACT FINDINGS WE CANNOT REAPPRECIATE , RECORDING IS SUCH, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PERVERSE AS IT IS NOT FACT FINDING OF THE LD. TRIBUNAL ALONE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CAME TO THE SAME FACT FI NDING. CONCURRENT FACT FINDING ITSELF MAKES THE STORY OF PERVERSITY, UNBEL IEVABLE. THE D BENCH OF THE KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F GAUTAM KUMAR PINCHA VS. ITO, IN I.T.A. NO. 569/KOL/2017 DATED 15.11.2017 AT PARA 19 ONWARDS HELD AS FOLLOWS: (I) M/S CLASSIC GROWERS LTD. VS. CIT [ITA NO. 129 OF 20 12] (CAL HC) IN THIS CASE THE LD AO FOUND THAT THE FORMAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT HUGE LOSSES CLAIMED IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE STAGE MANAGED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE OPINION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE GENERATED A SIZEABLE AMOUNT OF LOSS OUT OF PREARRANGED TRANSACT IONS SO AS TO REDUCE THE QUANTUM OF INCOME LIABLE FOR TAX MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE VIEW E XPRESSED BY THE LD AO BUT HE MISERABLY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT. THE HIGH COU RT HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 31 AT THE PREVAILING PRICE AND THEREFORE THE SUSPICION OF THE AO WAS MISPLACED AND NOT SUBSTANTIATED. (II) CIT V. LAKSHMANGARH ESTATE & TRADING CO. LIMITED [2 013] 40 TAXMANN.COM 439 (CAL) IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD T HAT ON THE BASIS OF A SUSPICION HOWSOEVER STRONG IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECORD ANY FINDING OF FACT. AS A MATTER OF FACT SUSPICION CAN NEVER TAKE THE PLACE OF PROOF. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT I N ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IT IS DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO HOLD THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS OF BUYING OR SELLING OF SHARES WERE COLOURABLE TRANSACTIONS OR WERE RESORTED TO WITH UL TERIOR MOTIVE. (III) CIT V. SHREYASHI GANGULI [ITA NO. 196 OF 2012] (CAL HC) IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE TRANSACTIONS SINCE THE SELLING BROKER WAS SUBJECTED TO SEBIS ACTION. HOWEVER THE TRANSACTIONS WERE AS PER NORMS AND SUFFERED STT, BROKERAGE, SERVICE TAX, AND CESS. THE RE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE OVER THE TRANSACTIONS AS IT WERE REFLECTED IN DEMAT ACCOUNT. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. (IV) CIT V. RUNGTA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED [ITA NO. 1 05 OF 2016] (CAL HC) IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE D ECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL , WHEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE T HE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HIS TRANSACTIONS IN ALLE GED 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 NOT DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT T HE AOS CONCLUSIONS ARE MERELY BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM. THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. ( V) CIT V. ANDAMAN TIMBERS INDUSTRIES LIMITED [ITA NO. 721 OF 2008] (CAL HC) IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE D ECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED SINCE THE AO FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE WER E NOT GENUINE. (VI) CIT V. BHAGWATI PRASAD AGARWAL [2009- TMI-34738 (CA L HC) IN ITA NO. 22 OF 2009 DATED 29.4.2009] IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF INCO ME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HOWEVER, THE AO, BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM FROM CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE FOUND THAT THE TRA NSACTIONS WERE NOT RECORDED THEREAT. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WE RE BOGUS. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CHAIN OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PROVED, ACCOUNTED FOR, DOCUMENTED AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE . IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CONTRACT NOTES, DETAILS OF DE MAT ACCOUNTS AND PRODUCED DOCUMENTS SHOWING ALL PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKS. ON THESE FACTS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS SUMMARIL Y DISMISSED BY HIGH COURT. 8.4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS STATED I.E. (I T O XIV) IN PARA 6(SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ADVERSE MATERIAL TO IMPLICATE THE ASS ESSEE TO HAVE ENTERED GAMUT OF UNFOUNDED/UNWARRANTED ALLEGATIONS LEVELED BY THE AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AND THEREFO RE HAS TO FALL. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTS SUPPORTED WITH MATER IAL EVIDENCES WHICH ARE ON RECORD AND COULD ONLY RELY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO/CIT(A). WE NOTE T HAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL/EVIDENCE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE/BROKERS GOT INVOLVED IN PRICE RIGGING/MANIPULATION OF SHARES MUST THEREFORE ALSO FAIL. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILLS, CONTRACT NOTES, DEMA T STATEMENT AND BANK ACCOUNT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELEVANT TO THE PUR CHASE AND SALE OF SHARES RESULTING IN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THESE EVIDENCES WERE NEITHER FOU ND BY THE AO NOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE FALSE OR FICTITIOUS OR BOGUS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTIN G THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 32 LTCG IS EXEMPTED U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALIPINE INVESTMENTS IN ITA NO.620 OF 2008 DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2008 WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOW S : IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS LOSS AND THE WHOLE TRANS ACTIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY THE CONTRACT NOTES, BILLS AND WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH RECOGNIZE D STOCK BROKER OF THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE AND ALL THE BILLS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE S HARE BROKER THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE WHICH ARE ALSO FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASSESSMENT. IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS AND MATERIALS PLACED BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EE. 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 T HERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW HELD IN THIS MATTER. HENCE THE APPEAL BEING ITA NO.620 OF 2 008 IS DISMISSED. 8.5. 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 INCO RPORATED IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR (SUPRA) AND HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY US TO ARRI VE AT OUR CONCLUSION. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CASE LAWS TO SUPPORT THE IM PUGNED DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A)/AO. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE H OLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHAR ES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELE TE THE ADDITION. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. THE A BENCH OF THE KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F ITO VS. SHALEEN KHEMANI IN I.T.A. NO. 1945/KOL/2014 DATED 18.10.2017 AT PARA 9.1. TO 9.4 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 9.1 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY BACKED BY ALL EVIDENCES INCLUDING CONTRACT NOTES, D EMAT STATEMENT, BANK ACCOUNT REFLECTING THE TRANSACTIONS, THE STOCK BROKERS HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS, THE STOCK EXCHANGE HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS, THE SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD ON THE ONLINE PLATFORM OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND EACH TRAD E OF SALE OF SHARES WERE HAVING UNIQUE TRADE NO. AND TRADE TIME. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE SHARES WHICH WERE SOLD ON THE DATE MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT NOTE WERE NOT TR ADED PRICE ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE. THE LD AO DOUBTED THE TRANSACTIONS DUE TO THE HIGH RISE IN THE STOCK PRICE BUT FOR THAT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BLAMED AND THERE WAS NO E VIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE OR ANY ONE ON HIS BEHALF WAS MANIPULATING THE STOCK PRICES. THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND SEBI ARE THE AUTHORITIES APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNMEN T OF INDIA TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO STOCK RIGGING OR MANIPULATION. THE LD AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE AGENCIES HAVE ALLEGED ANY STOCK MANIPULATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND OR THE BROKERS AND OR THE COMPANY. IN ABSENCE O F ANY EVIDENCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE STOCK PRICE MOVED SHARPLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE BLAMED FOR BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. IT IS ALSO TO BE SEEN THAT IN T HIS CASE, THE SHARES WERE HELD BY THE DONORS FROM 2003 AND SOLD IN 2010 THUS THERE WAS A HOLDING PERIOD OF 7 YEARS AS PER SECTION 49 OF THE ACT AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E ASSESSEE AND THE DONORS WERE MAKING SUCH PLANS FOR THE LAST 7 YEARS TO RIG THE S TOCK PRICE TO GENERATE BOGUS CAPITAL GAINS THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER. 9.2 IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSE E AND / OR THE STOCK BROKER M/S P DIDWANIA & CO AND TOSHITH SECURITIES P LTD., BOTH R EGISTERED SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS WITH CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE HAD CONFIRMED THE TRAN SACTION AND HAVE ISSUED LEGALLY VALID CONTRACT NOTES UNDER THE LAW AND SUCH CONTRAC T NOTES ARE AVAILABLE IN PAGES 41- 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE CALC UTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR CIT VS RUNGTA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ITAT NO 10 5 OF 2016 DATED 8 TH MAY 2017 IN A SIMILAR ISSUE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTM ENT BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 33 (11) ON THE LAST POINT, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORDS ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTIO NS IN SHARES OF THE COMPANY INVOLVED WERE FALSE OR FICTITIOUS. IT IS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SCRIPS OF THIS COMPANY WAS EXECUTED BY A BROKER THROUGH CROSS DEALS AND THE BROKER WAS SUSPENDED FOR SOME TIME. IT IS ASSESSEES CONTENTIO N ON THE OTHER THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE BROKER, BUT FOR T HAT REASON ALONE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE. ON THIS POINT THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS A MATTER OF FACT THE AO DOUBTED THE INTEGRITY O F THE BROKER OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BROKER OPERATION AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE BROKER FIRM AND ALSO AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE INTENTION OF SHOWING TRADING OF SHARES ONLY IN THREE PENNY STOCKS. AO RELIED THE LOSS OF RS.25,30, 396/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE STOCK FICTITIOUS. AO H AS ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD BY TH E ASSESSEE. AOS OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION ARE MERELY BASED ON THE INFORMATION REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE ON SUCH BASIS NO DISALLOW ANCE CAN BE MADE AND ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WE AGREE WITH THE REASONING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS POINT ALSO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SU GGESTED QUESTIONS, IN OUR OPINION DO NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 9.3. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ADVERSE MATERIAL TO IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE TO THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF UNWARRANTED ALLEGAT IONS 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 ARG UMENTS OF THE LD AR WITH CONTRARY MATERIAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND MERELY RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE LD AO. WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE AND / OR BROK ERS GETTING INVOLVED IN PRICE RIGGING OF SOICL SHARES FAILS. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECO RD THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF BILLS, CONTRACT NOTES, DEM AT STATEMENTS AND THE BANK ACCOUNTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATI NG TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES RESULTING IN LTCG. THESE EVIDENCES WERE NEITHER FOU ND BY THE LD AO TO BE FALSE OR FABRICATED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE BONA FIDE AND GENUINE AND THEREFORE THE LD AO WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LD CITA RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF ALPINE INVESTMENTS IN ITA NO. 620 OF 2008 DATED 26 TH AUGUST 2008 WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: IT APPEARS THAT THE SHARE LOSS AND THE WHOLE TRANS ACTIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY CONTRACT NOTES, BILLS AND WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCKBROKER OF THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE AND ALL THE PAYMENTS MA DE TO THE STOCKBROKER AND ALL THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM STOCKBROKER THRO UGH ACCOUNT PAYEE INSTRUMENTS, WHICH WERE ALSO FILED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE ASSESSMENT. IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS AND MATERIALS PLACED BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN DOING SO, THE TRIB UNAL HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES COULD NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES. HOWEVER, I T WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 34 TRANSACTIONS OF SHARE ARE GENUINE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANY REASON TO HOLD THAT THERE IS ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTI ON OF LAW INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER. HENCE, THE APPEAL BEING ITA NO.620 OF 2008 IS DISMISSED. 9.4. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER CASE LAWS ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE L D 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 LD AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES OF SOICL AS U NDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CITA AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN ALL TH E ABOVE REFERRED CASES, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E AND THERE ARE BACKED BY EVIDENCE. I ALSO FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BASED ITS FINDING ON IN ANY EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS H EREBY DELETED. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDS AT THIS STAGE THAT THE DIT(INV) HAS CARRIED OUT A DETAILED INVESTIGATION IN VARIOUS ENTRY OPERATORS CASES. THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE RIGGED SUCH KIND SCRIPS PRICES RISE. THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE MATERIAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHICH COULD SUGGEST THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF FOUL PLAY. THIS TRIBUNALS ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN ITA NO.2281/KOL/2017 NAVNEET AGARWAL VS. ITO DECIDED ON 20.07.2018 HAS REJECTED REVENUES ALL TH ESE ARGUMENTS AS FOLLOWS: 9. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REITERATED THE FINDINGS MADE THEREIN AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SA ME BE UPHELD. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL T HE EVIDENCES REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS CLAIM, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THESE ARE ORG ANIZED AND MANAGED TRANSACTIONS. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE MODUS OPERANDI MENTIONE D BY THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL CASES WHERE THE SHARES OF THESE COMPANIES ARE P URCHASED AND SOLD, ADDITIONS HAVE TO BE MADE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AS T HERE ARE CASES WHERE MANIPULATION HAS TAKEN PLACE. HE REITERATED EACH AND EVERY OBSER VATION AND FINDING OF THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME BE UPHELD. 10. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND ORDER OF THE LOWERS AUTHORITIES BELOW, AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 11. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS STATED THE FOLLOW ING FACTS AND PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCES: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF 50000 EQUITY SHARES OF SMART CHAMPS IT AND INFRA LTD. AND SHE WAS ALLOTTED THE SHARE ON 3 RD DECEMBER 2011 (COPY OF APPLICATION FORM, INTIMATION OF ALLOTMENT AND SHARE CERTIFICATE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 8 TO 10). 2. THE PAYMENT FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WAS MADE TH ROUGH AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE (COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT EVIDENCING THE SOURCE O F MONEY AND PAYMENT MADE TO SMART CHAMPS IT & INFRA LTD. FOR SUCH SHARES ALLOTTED IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 11). 3. ANNUAL RETURN NO. 20B WAS FILED WITH REGISTRAR OF C OMPANIES BY SMART CHAMPS IT & INFRA LTD SHOWING THE ASSESSEES NAME AS SHAREHOLD ER (COPY OF ANNUAL RETURN NO. 20B FILED WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES BY SMART CHAMPS IT & INFRA LTD. IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 12 TO 18.) 4. THE ASSESSEE LODGED THE SAID SHARES WITH THE DEPOSI TORY M/S. EUREKA STOCK & SHARE BROKING SERVICES LTD. WITH A DEMAT REQUEST ON 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. THE SAID SHARES WERE DEMATERIALIZED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2012 (COPY OF DEMAT REQUEST SLIP ALONG WITH THE TRANSACTION STATEMENT IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 1 9 TO 21). ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 35 5. ON 24.01.2013, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT APPROV ED THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OF SMART CHAMPS IT AND INFRA LTD. WITH CRESSANDA SOLUTIONS LTD. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS A LLOTTED 50000 EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. CRESSANDA SOLUTIONS LTD. THE DEMAT SHARES ARE REFL ECTED IN THE TRANSACTION STATEMENT OF THE PERIOD FROM 1 ST NOVEMBER 2011 TO 31 ST DECEMBER, 2013 (A COPY OF THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION ALONGWITH COPY OF ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND A COPY OF THE LETTER TO THIS EFFECT SUBMITTED BY CRESSANDA S OLUTIONS LTD. TO BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO 22 TO 43.) 6. THE ASSESSEE SOLD 50000 SHARES COSTING RS. 500000/- THROUGH HER BROKER SKP STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD WHICH WAS A SEBI REGISTERED BROKE R AND EARNED A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,18,13,072/-. (COPY OF THE BANK STATEM ENT, BROKERS CONTRACT NOTE TOGETHER WITH THE DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE DP AND BROKERS CONFIRMATION IS ALSO PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO 44 TO 65). 7. COPY OF FORM NO. 10DB ISSUED BY THE BROKER, IN SUPP ORT OF CHARGING OF S.T.T. IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE LEDGER IS PLAC ED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 66. 8. THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE SAID SCRIP IS MORE THAN O NE YEAR (ABOVE 500 DAYS) THROUGH IN ORDER TO GET THE BENEFIT OF CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN THE HOLDING PERIOD IS REQUIRED TO BE 365 DAYS. 12.THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE REJECTED THESE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO MODUS OPERANDI OF PERSONS FOR EARNING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WHICH HIS EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX. ALL THESE OBSERV ATIONS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND ARE APPLIED ACROSS THE BOARD TO ALL THE 60,000 OR MORE ASSESSEES WHO FALL IN THIS CATEGORY. SPECIFIC EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CONTROVE RTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. NO EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM THIRD PARTIES IS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSES. NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS- EXAMINATION OF PERSONS, ON WHOSE STATEMENTS THE REV ENUE RELIES TO MAKE THE ADDITION, IS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION IS MADE BASE D ON A REPORT FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING. 13. THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE US IS WHETHE R, IN SUCH CASES, THE LEGAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO GUIDE OUR DECISION IN THE MATTER OR THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS BASED ON STATEMENTS, PROBABILITIES, HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND DISCOVERY OF THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED IN EARNING ALLEGED BOGUS LTCG AND STCG, THA T HAVE SURFACED DURING INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD GUIDE THE AUTHORITIES IN ARRIVING AT A CONCL USION AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM IN GENUINE OR NOT. AN ALLEGED SCAM MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON LTCG ETC. BUT IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN EACH CASE, BY THE PARTY ALLEGING SO, THAT THIS ASSE SSEE IN QUESTION WAS PART OF THIS SCAM. THE CHAIN OF EVENTS AND THE LIVE LINK OF THE ASSESSEES ACTION GIVING HER INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCAM SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED. THE ALLEGATION IMPLY THAT CA SH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN RETURN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED LTCG, WHICH IS INCOME EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX, BY WAY OF CHEQUE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THIS ALLEGATION THAT CASH HAD CHANGED HANDS, HAS TO BE PROVED WITH EVIDENCE, BY THE REVENUE. EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE DIRECTOR INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE BY WAY OF STATEMENTS RECORDED ETC. HAS TO ALSO BE BROUGHT ON RECORDING EACH CASE, WHEN SUCH A STATEMENT, EVIDENCE ETC. IS RELIED UPON BY THE REV ENUE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONS. OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION HAS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE E, IF THE AO RELIES ON ANY STATEMENTS OR THIRD PARTY AS EVIDENCE TO MAKE AN ADDITION. IF ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IS SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE AO, HE HAS TO CONFRONT THE ASSESSEE WIT H SUCH MATERIAL. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED BASED ON MERE CONJECTURES UNVERI FIED BY EVIDENCE UNDER THE PRETENTIOUS GARB OF PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND TH EORY OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR BY THE DEPARTMENT. 14. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM THIRD PARTIES CANNOT BE USED AGAINST AN ASSESSEE UNLESS THIS EVIDENCE IS PUT BEFORE HIM AND HE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROVERT THE EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE, THE AO RELIES ONLY ON A REPORT AS THE BASIS FOR THE ADDITION. THE EVIDENCE BASED ON WHICH THE DDIT REPORT IS PREPARED IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO NOR IS IT PUT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT SHE IS JUST AN INVESTOR AND AS ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 36 SHE RECEIVED SOME TIPS AND SHE CHOSE TO INVEST BASE D ON THESE MARKET TIPS AND HAD TAKEN A CALCULATED RISK AND HAD GAINED IN THE PROCESS AND T HAT SHE IS NOT PARTY TO THE SCAM ETC., HAS TO BE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE WITH EVIDENCE. WHEN A PERSON CLAIMS THAT SHE HAS DONE THESE TRANSACTIONS IN A BONA FIDE AND GENUINE MANNER AND WAS BENEFITTED, ONE CANNOT REJECT THIS SUBMISSION BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. AS TH E REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING SUGGESTS, THERE ARE MORE THAN 60,000 BENEFICIARIES OF LTCG. E ACH CASE HAS TO BE ASSESSED BASED ON LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL IMPORT LAID DOWN BY THE C OURTS OF LAW. 15. IN OUR VIEW, JUST THE MODUS OPERANDI, GENERALIS ATION, PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES CANNOT BE THE ONLY BASIS FOR REJECTIN G THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. UNLESS SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE VAL IDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED, THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF OMAR SALAV MOHAMED SAIT REPORTED IN (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) HAD HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSP ICION AND CONJECTURES. IN THE CASE OF CIT(CENTRAL), KOLKATA VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL REPO RTED IN 87 ITR 349, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT, THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL IS ON THE PARTY WHO CLAIMS IT TO BE SO. THE BURDEN OF PROVING A TRANSAC TION TO BE BOGUS HAS TO BE STRICTLY DISCHARGED BY ADDUCING LEGAL EVIDENCES, WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY PROVE THE FACT OF BOGUSNESS OR ESTABLISH CIRCUMSTANCE UNERRINGLY AND REASONABLY RA ISING AN INTERFERENCE TO THAT EFFECT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UMACHARAN SHAH & BROS. VS. CIT 37 ITR 271 HELD THAT SUSPICION HOWEVER STRONG, CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE. IN THIS CONNECTION WE REFER TO THE GENERAL VIEW ON THE TOPIC OF CONVEYANCE OF IMMOVABL E PROPERTIES. THE RATES/SALE PRICE ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE CIRCLE RATES FIXED BY THE REGISTR ATION AUTHORITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MOST CASES AND THE GENERAL IMPRESSION IS THAT CASH WOULD HAVE CHANGED HANDS. THE COURTS HAVE LAID DOWN THAT JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SUCH NOTORIOUS FACTS C ANNOT BE TAKEN BASED ON GENERALISATIONS. COURTS OF LAW ARE BOUND TO GO BY EVIDENCE. 16. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE L D. CIT(A) HAS BEEN GUIDED BY THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING PREPARED WITH RESPECT TO BOGUS CAPITAL GAINS TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL A S THE LD. CIT(A), HAVE BROUGHT OUT ANY PART OF THE INVESTIGATION WING REPORT IN WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED AND /OR FOUND TO BE A PART OF ANY ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GEN ERATING BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PERSONS INVESTIGATED, INCLUDING ENTRY OPERATORS OR STOCK BROKERS, HAVE NAMED THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS IN COLLUSION WITH THEM. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDING HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO LINK THEIR WRONG DOINGS WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE INVESTIGATION WING IS A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT WHI CH HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED ASSESSMENT WORK AND HAS BEEN DELEGATED THE WORK OF ONLY MAKING INVE STIGATION. THE ACT HAS VESTED WIDEST POWERS ON THIS WING. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE INVESTIG ATION WING TO CONDUCT PROPER AND DETAILED INQUIRY IN ANY MATTER WHERE THERE IS ALLEGATION OF TAX EVASION AND AFTER MAKING PROPER INQUIRY AND COLLECTING PROPER EVIDENCES THE MATTER SHOULD B E SENT TO THE ASSESSMENT WING TO ASSESS THE INCOME AS PER LAW. WE FIND NO SUCH ACTION EXECUTED BY INVESTIGATION WING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING SPECIFICALLY AG AINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE INVESTIGATION WING REPORT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE GUILTY OR LINKED TO THE WRONG ACTS OF THE PERSONS INVESTIGATED. IN THIS CASE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AT BEST COULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AS A STARTING POINT OF INVESTI GATION. THE REPORT ONLY INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SOME PERSONS MAY HAVE MISUSED THE SCRI PT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLUSIVE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DUTY BOUND T O MAKE INQUIRY FROM ALL CONCERNED PARTIES RELATING TO THE TRANSACTION AND THEN TO COLLECT EVI DENCES THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A COLLUSIVE TRANSACTION. WE, HOWE VER, FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT TH E TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE SUPPORTED BY PROPER THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS ARE COLLUSIVE TRANSACTIONS. 17. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAY BACK IN THE CASE OF LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VS. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) HELD THAT ASSESSMENT COU LD NOT BE BASED ON BACKGROUND OF SUSPICION AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAME. THE HONBLE COURT HELD: ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 37 ADVERTING TO THE VARIOUS PROBABILITIES WHICH WEIGH ED WITH THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE NOTORIETY FOR SMUGGLING FOOD G RAINS AND OTHER COMMODITIES TO BENGAL BY COUNTRY BOATS ACQUIRED BY SAHIBGUNJ AND T HE NOTORIETY ACHIEVED BY DHULIAN AS A GREAT RECEIVING CENTRE FOR SUCH COMMOD ITIES WERE MERELY A BACKGROUND OF SUSPICION AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE TARRED WITH THE SAME BRUSH AS EVERY ARHATDAR AND GRAIN MERCHANT WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN IND ULGING IN SMUGGLING OPERATIONS, WITHOUT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE IN THAT BEH ALF. THE CANCELLATION OF THE FOOD GRAIN LICENCE AT NAWGACHIA AND THE PROSECUTION OF T HE APPELLANT UNDER THE DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES WAS ALSO OF NO CONSEQUENCE INASMUCH AS THE APPELLANT WAS ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH IT HAD BEEN CHARGED AND ITS LICENCE ALSO WAS RESTORED. THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT EARNING CONSIDERA BLE AMOUNTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS A PURE CONJECTURE ON THE PART OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT INDULGED IN SPECULATION (IN KALAI ACCOUNT) COULD NOT LEGITIMATELY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE PROFIT IN A SINGLE TRANSACTION OR IN A CHAIN OF TRANSACTIONS COULD EXCEED THE AMOUNTS, INVOLVED IN THE HIGH DENOMINATION NOTES,--- THIS ALSO WAS A PURE CONJECTURE OR SURMISE ON THE P ART OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. AS REGARDS THE DISCLOSED VOLUME OF BUSINESS IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE HEAD OFFICE AND IN BRANCHES THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INDUL GED IN SPECULATION WHEN HE TALKED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT EARNING A CONSI DERABLE SUM AS AGAINST WHICH IT SHOWED A NET LOSS OF ABOUT RS. 45,000. THE INCOME-T AX OFFICER INDICATED THE PROBABLE SOURCE OR SOURCES FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD HA VE EARNED A LARGE AMOUNT IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,91,000 BUT THE CONCLUSION WHICH HE ARR IVED AT IN REGARD TO THE APPELLANT HAVING EARNED THIS LARGE AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR AND WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM REPRESENTED THE SECRETED PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT I N ITS BUSINESS WAS THE RESULT OF PURE CONJECTURES AND SURMISES ON HIS PART AND HAD NO FOU NDATION IN FACT AND WAS NOT PROVED AGAINST THE APPELLANT ON THE RECORD OF THE P ROCEEDINGS. IF THE CONCLUSION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS THUS EITHER PERVERSE OR VITI ATED BY SUSPICIONS, CONJECTURES OR SURMISES, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS EQUALLY P ERVERSE OR VITIATED IF THE TRIBUNAL TOOK COUNT OF ALL THESE PROBABILITIES AND WITHOUT A NY RHYME OR REASON AND MERELY BY A RULE OF THUMB, AS IT WERE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE POSSESSION OF 150 HIGH DENOMINATION NOTES OF RS. 1,000 EACH WAS SATISFACTO RILY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT BUT NOT THAT OF THE BALANCE OF 141 HIGH DENOMINATIO N NOTES OF RS.1,000 EACH. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT ARE EQUA LLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A CO LLUSIVE TRANSACTION COULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, I N THIS CASE NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITH AID OF ANY DIRECT EVIDENCES OR MA TERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE MATTER BEING INVESTIGATED BY VARIOUS WINGS OF THE I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HENCE IN OUR VIEW UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NOTHING CAN BE IMPLICATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 18. WE NOW CONSIDER THE VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS OF LAW. THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ONE PART OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: A) AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS. THE STATE OF MAHA RASHTRA AND ORS. 23. A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN STATE OF M.P.V. CHINTAMAN SADASHIVA VAISHAMPAYAN AIR 1961 SC1623, HELD THAT THE RULES O F NATURAL JUSTICE, REQUIRE THAT A PARTY MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE ALL RELEVAN T EVIDENCE UPON WHICH HE RELIES, AND FURTHER THAT, THE EVIDENCE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY SH OULD BE TAKEN IN HIS PRESENCE, AND THAT HE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINING THE WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THAT PARTY. NOT PROVIDING THE SAID OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WIT NESSES, WOULD VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (SEE ALSO: UNION OF INDIA V. T.R. VARMA, AIR 1957 SC 882; MEENGLAS TEA ESTATE V. WORKMEN, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/S. KESORAM C OTTON MILLS LTD. V. GANGADHAR AND ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 38 ORS. ,AIR 1964 SC708; NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V. NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA AND ANR. AIR 2008 SC 876; RACHPAL SINGH AND ORS. V. GURMIT SINGH AND ORS. AIR 2009 SC 2448;BIECCO LAWRIE AND ANR. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. AI R 2010 SC 142; AND STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA AIR 2010 SC 3131). 24. IN LAKSHMAN EXPORTS LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRA L EXCISE (2005) 10 SCC 634, THIS COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH A CASE UNDER THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944,CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE I.E. PERMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO BE ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMI NE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FIRMS CONCERN, TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GOODS IN QUESTION HA D BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND THAT EXCISE DUTY HAD BEEN PAID. THE C OURT HELD THAT SUCH A REQUEST COULD NOT BE TURNED DOWN, AS THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EX AMINE, WOULD AMOUNT TO ADENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD I.E. AUDI ALTERAMPARTEM. 28. THE MEANING OF PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST AN ACTION PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT, IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT IS AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST TH E CHARGES, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN INQUIRY IS HELD. THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT SHOULD BE G IVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DENY HIS GUILT AND ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE. HE CAN DO SO ONLY WHEN HE IS TOLD WHAT THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM ARE. HE CAN THEREFORE, DO SO BY CROSS-EXAMINING THE WITN ESSES PRODUCED AGAINST HIM. THE OBJECT OF SUPPLYING STATEMENTS IS THAT, THE GOVERNMENT SERVAN T WILL BE ABLE TO REFER TO THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES PROPOSED TO BE EXAMINED AGAINST HIM. UNLESS THE SAID STATEMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT, HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONDUCT AN EFFECTIVE AND USEFUL CROSS-EXAMINATION. 29. IN RAJIV ARORA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AIR 2 009SC 1100, THIS COURT HELD: EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AS REGARDS T HE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE REPORT, IF THE CONTENTS OF THEM WERE PROVED. THE PR INCIPLES ANALOGOUS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AS ALSO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE DEMAND THAT THE MAKER OF THE REPORT SHOULD BE EXAMINED, SAVE AND EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE THE FACTS ARE ADMITTED OR THE WITNESSES ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION O R SIMILAR SITUATION. THE HIGH COURT IN ITS IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PROCEEDED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE O N A TECHNICAL PLEA, NAMELY, NO PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE APPELLANT BY SUCH NON-EXAMIN ATION. IF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LAW HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH OR THERE HAS BEEN A GROSS VI OLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE HIGH COURT SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTI ON OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. 30. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION MAKES IT EVIDENT THAT, NOT ONLY SHOULD THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS- EXAMINATION BE MADE AVAILABLE, BUT IT SHOULD BE ONE OF EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION, SO AS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AS CROSS-EXAMINATION IS AN INTEGRAL PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. B) ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-II WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: 4. WE HAVE HEARD MR. KAVIN GULATI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND MR. K.RADHAKRISHNAN, LEARNED SENIOR C OUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE. 5. ACCORDING TO US, NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CR OSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THO SE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND T HAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS BASED UPON THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAI D TWO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS AND WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 39 ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT THIS OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND THE AF ORESAID PLEA IS NOT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY. AS FAR AS THE T RIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT REJECTION OF THIS PLEA IS TOTALLY UNTENABLE. THE TR IBUNAL HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT CROSS- EXAMINATION OF THE SAID DEALERS COULD NOT HAVE BROU GHT OUT ANY MATERIAL WHICH WOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT THEMSELVES TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THEIR EX-FACTORY PRICES REMAIN STATIC. IT WAS NOT FOR THE TRIBUNAL T O HAVE GUESS WORK AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSES THE APPELLANT WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THOS E DEALERS AND WHAT EXTRACTION THE APPELLANT WANTED FROM THEM. 6. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAD CONTESTED THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE STATEMENTS OF THESE TWO WITNESSES AND WANTED TO DISCREDIT THEI R TESTIMONY FOR WHICH PURPOSE IT WANTED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATIO N. THAT APART, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE PRICE LIST AS MAIN TAINED AT THE DEPOT TO DETERMINE THE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY. WHETH ER THE GOODS WERE, IN FACT, SOLD TO THE SAID DEALERS/WITNESSES AT THE PRICE WHICH IS ME NTIONED IN THE PRICE LIST ITSELF COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEREFO RE, IT WAS NOT FOR THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY TO PRESUPPOSE AS TO WHAT COULD BE THE SUB JECT MATTER OF THE CROSS- EXAMINATION AND MAKE THE REMARKS AS MENTIONED ABOVE . WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT ON AN EARLIER OCCASION WHEN THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THIS COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2216 OF 2000, ORDER DATED 17-3-2005[2005 (187) E.L. T. A33 (S.C.)] WAS PASSED REMITTING THE CASE BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE DI RECTIONS TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS GIVING ITS REASONS FOR ACCEPTING OR REJECTIN G THE SUBMISSIONS. 7. IN VIEW THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE TESTIMONY OF THESE TWO WITNESSES IS DISCREDITED, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WITH THE DEPA RTMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD JUSTIFY ITS ACTION, AS THE STATEMENT OF THE A FORESAID TWO WITNESSES WAS THE ONLY BASIS OF ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. 19. ON SIMILAR FACTS WHERE THE REVENUE HAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED BOGUS LTCG, IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: A) THE CALCUTTAHIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BLBCABLES &CONDUCTORS[ITA NO. 78 OF2017] DATED19.06.2018. THE HIGH COURT HELD VIDE PARA 4.1: WE FIND THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE BROKER WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BROKER HAS ALSO DECL ARED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN OUR VIEW TO HOLD A TRANSAC TION AS BOGUS, THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONCRETE EVIDENCE WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE PROVED WITH THE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. HERE IN THE CASE THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGED HAVE NOT ONLY BEEN EXPLAINED BUT ALSO SUBSTANTIATED FROM THE CONF IRMATION OF THE PARTY. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY SUPPORTED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR THE TRADING OF COMMODITY TRANSACTION . THE BROKER WAS EXPELLED FROM THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE CANNOT BE THE CRITERIA TO HO LD THE TRANSACTION AS BOGUS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES AND ALLOW THE COMMON GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. [QUOTED VERBATIM] THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON FA CT. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN SHOWN TO US WHO WOULD NEGATE THE TRIBUNALS FINDING THAT OFF MA RKET TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT PROHIBITED. AS REGARDS VERACITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS , THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO ITS CONCLUSION ON ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT MATERIALS. THAT BEING THE POSITION, TRIBUNAL HAVING ANALYZED THE SET OFF ACTS IN COMING TO ITS FINDING, WE DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 40 INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EXER CISE OF OUR JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. NO SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. THE APPEAL AND THE STAY PETITION, A CCORDINGLY, SHALL STAND DISMISSED. B) THE JAIPURITAT IN THE CASE OF VIVEKAGARWAL[ITA N O.292/JP/2017]ORDER DATED 06.04.2018 HELD AS UNDER VIDE PAGE 9 PARA 3: WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS MERELY BASED ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT BACK HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOM E IN THE SHAPE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT. C) THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF PREMPAL GANDHI[ITA-95-2017(O&M)] DATED18.01.2018 AT VIDE PA GE 3 PARA 4 HELD AS UNDER: .. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE CASES ADDED THE APPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON THE SUSPICION THAT THESE WERE FICTITIOUS TRANSACTIONS AND THAT THE APPRECIATION ACTUALLY REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IN ITA-18-2017 ALSO THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WHA TSOEVER IN SUPPORT OF THE SUSPICION. ON THE OTHER HAND, ALTHOUGH THE APPRECIA TION IS VERY HIGH, THE SHARES WERE TRADED ON THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE PAYME NTS AND RECEIPTS WERE ROUTED THROUGH THE BANK. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE FOR INSTANCE THAT THIS WAS A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY AND THAT THE TRADING ON THE NA TIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE WAS MANIPULATED IN ANY MANNER. THE COURT ALSO HELD THE FOLLOWING VIDE PAGE 3 PARA 5 THE FOLLOWING: QUESTION (IV) HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN DETAIL BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL. FIRSTLY, THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER RELIED UPON IN THE APPEAL WERE NOT PUT TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THE CIT (APPEALS) NEVERTHELESS CONSIDERED THEM IN DETAIL AND FOUND TH AT THERE WAS NO CO-RELATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS SOUGHT TO BE ADDED AND THE ENTR IES IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. THIS WAS ON AN APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THERE IS NOTHING TO IN DICATE THAT THE SAME WAS PERVERSE OR IRRATIONAL. ACCORDINGLY, NO QUESTION OF LAW ARIS ES. D) THE BENCH DOF KOLKATAITAT IN THE CASE OF GAUTA M PINCHA [ITA NO.569/KOL/2017]ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 HELD AS UNDE R VIDE PAGE 12 PARA 8.1: IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS STATED I.E. (I TO XI V) IN PARA 6(SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ADVERSE MATERIAL TO IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ENTERED GAMUT OF UNFOUNDED/UNWARRANTED ALLEGATIONS LEVELED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION HAS NO LE GS TO STAND AND THEREFORE HAS TO FALL. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTRO VERT THE FACTS SUPPORTED WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCES WHICH ARE ON RECORD AND COULD ON LY RELY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO/CIT (A). WE NOTE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL /EVIDENCE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE/BROKERS GOT INVOLVED IN PRICE RIGGING/MANI PULATION OF SHARES MUST THEREFORE ALSO FAIL. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILLS, CONTRACT NOTES, DEMA T STATEMENT AND BANK ACCOUNT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELEVANT TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES RESULTING IN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THESE EVIDENCE S WERE NEITHER FOUND BY THE AO NOR BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO BE FALSE OR FICTITIOUS OR BOG US. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE AND THE A UTHORITIES BELOW WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 41 IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME FROM LTCG IS EXEMPTED U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. FURTHER IN PAGE 15 PARA 8.5 OF THE JUDGMENT, IT HEL D: 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 BY US TO ARRIVE AT OUR CONCLUSION. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CASE L AWS TO SUPPORT THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A)/AO. IN THE AFORESAID FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UP HOLDING THE ADDITION OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. E) THE BENCH D OF KOLKATA ITAT IN THE CASE OF KI RAN KOTHARI HUF [ITA NO. 443/KOL/2017] ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 HELD VIDE PAR A 9.3 HELD AS UNDER: .. WE FIND THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ADVERSE M ATERIAL TO IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE TO THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF UNFOUNDED/UNWARRANTED ALLEGA TIONS LEVELED BY THE AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION HAS N O LEGS TO STAND AND THEREFORE HAS TO FALL. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. DR COULD NOT CON TROVERT THE FACTS WHICH ARE SUPPORTED WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE ON RECORD AND COULD ONLY RELY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO/CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE/BROKERS GOT INVOLVED IN PRICE RIGGING/MANI PULATION OF SHARES MUST THEREFORE CONSEQUENTLY FAIL. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE NO TE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILLS, CONTRACT NO TES, DEMAT STATEMENT AND BANK ACCOUNT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S RELEVANT TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES RESULTING IN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. NEITHER THESE EVIDENCES WERE FOUND BY THE AO NOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE FALSE OR FICT ITIOUS OR BOGUS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE EX EMPTED U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT SUSPICION HOW SO EVER STRONG, CANNOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF LEGAL EVIDENCE. IT FURTHER HELD AS FOLLOWS: 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 BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CASE LAWS TO S UPPORT THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A)/AO. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. F) THE BENCH AOF KOLKATAITAT IN THE CASE OF SHAL EENKHEMANI [ITA NO.1945/KOL/2014]ORDER DATED 18.10.2017 HELD AS UND ER VIDE PAGE 24 PARA 9.3: WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ADVE RSE MATERIAL TO IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE TO THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF UNWARRANTED ALLEGAT IONS 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 ARG UMENTS OF THE LD AR WITH CONTRARY MATERIAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND MERELY RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE LD AO. WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE AND / OR BROK ERS GETTING INVOLVED IN PRICE RIGGING OF SOICL SHARES FAILS. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECOR D THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 42 EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF BILLS, CONTRACT NOTES, DEM AT STATEMENTS AND THE BANK ACCOUNTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATI NG TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES RESULTING IN LTCG. THESE EVIDENCES WERE NEITHER FOU ND BY THE LD AO TO BE FALSE OR FABRICATED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE BONA FIDE AND GENUINE AND THEREFORE THE LD AO WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT. G) THE BENCH H OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF ARV INDKUMAR JAINHUF [ITA NO.4682/MUM/2014] ORDER DATED 18.09.2017 HELD AS UN DER VIDE PAGE 6 PARA 8: WE FOUND THAT AS FAR AS INITIATION OF INVESTIGAT ION OF BROKER IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE IS NO WAY CONCERNED WITH THE ACTIVITY OF T HE BROKER. DETAILED FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY CIT (A) TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSE E HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHICH WAS PURCHASED ON THE FLOOR OF STOCK EXCHANGE AND NOT FROM M/S BASANT PERIWAL AND CO. AGAINST PURCHASES PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, DELIVERY OF SHARES WERE TAKEN, CONTRACT OF SALE WAS ALSO COMPLETE AS PER THE CONTRACT ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONCER NED WITH ANY WAY OF THE BROKER. NOWHERE THE AO HAS ALLEGED THAT THE TRANSACTION BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THESE PARTICULAR BROKER OR SHARE WAS BOGUS, MERELY BECAUSE THE INVES TIGATION WAS DONE BY SEBI AGAINST BROKER OR HIS ACTIVITY, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ENTERED INTO INGENUINE TRANSACTION, INSOFAR AS ASSESSEE IS NOT CONCERNED W ITH THE ACTIVITY OF THE BROKER AND HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE SAME. WE FOUND THAT M/S BA SANT PERIWAL AND CO. NEVER STATED ANY OF THE AUTHORITY THAT TRANSACTIONS IN M/ S RAMKRISHNA FINCAP PVT. LTD. ON THE FLOOR OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE ARE INGENUINE OR ME RE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE CIT (A) AFTER RELYING ON THE VARIOUS DECISION OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH, WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TRANSACTION ENTERED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS GENUINE. DETAILED FINDING RECORDED BY CIT (A) AT PARA 3 TO 5 HAS NOT BEEN CON TROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDING LY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A). H)THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIVEK MEHTA [ITA NO. 894 OF2010] ORDER DATED 14.11.2011 VIDE PAGE 2 PARA 3 H ELD AS UNDER: ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) RECORDED A FIND ING OF FACT THAT THERE WAS A GENUINE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF SHARES BY THE AS SESSEE ON 16.3.2001 AND SALE THEREOF ON 21.3.2002. THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE WERE AS PER THE VALUATION PREVALENT IN THE STOCKS EXCHANGE. SUCH FI NDING OF FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED ON RECORD. THE TRIBU NAL HAS AFFIRMED SUCH FINDING. SUCH FINDING OF FACT IS SOUGHT TO BE DISPUTED IN TH E PRESENT APPEAL. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN APPEAL, GIVES GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION(S) OF LAW AS SOUGHT TO BE RAIS ED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I) THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD AGARWAL IN I.T.A. NO. 22/KOL/2009 DATED 29.04.2009 AT PARA 2 HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE CHAIN OF TRANSACTION E NTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PROVED, ACCOUNTED FOR, DOCUMENTED AND SUPPORTE D BY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL) THE CONTRACT NOTES, DETAILS OF HIS DEMAT ACCOUNT AND, ALSO, PRODUCED DO CUMENTS SHOWING THAT ALL PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANK . ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 43 J) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS . TEJU ROHIT KUMAR KAPADIA ORDER DATED 04.05.2018 UPHELD THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AS UNDER: IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY A S WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO CONCURRENT CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES ALREADY MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RAJ IMPEX WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND PAYMENTS WER E MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. RAJ IMPACTS ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS . THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECYCLED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. PARTICULARLY, WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE THE TRADER HAD ALSO SHOWN SALES O UT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM RAJ IMPEX WHICH WERE ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, NO Q UESTION OF LAW ARISES. 20. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW AS LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENTS TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE ARE BOUND TO CONSIDER AND RELY ON THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND BASE OU R DECISION ON SUCH EVIDENCE AND NOT ON SUSPICION OR PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO CONTROVERT THE EVIDENCE FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE CLAIM THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS A BONA FIDE LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE OF SHARES AND HENCE EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX. 21. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E DISCUSSION, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. 7. WE ADOPT ALL THIS REASONING MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO CONCLUDE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HA VE ERRED IN TREATING ASSESSEES LTCG TO BE BOGUS. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION( S) OF 93,19,895/- AND 4,65,995/1- ARE DELETED. 5. COMING TO REVENUES ARGUMENTS THAT DEPARTMENT HA D SEARCHED / SURVEYED VARIOUS ENTRY OPERATORS ALLEGED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN GIVING BOGUS LTCG REGARDING VERY SCRIP, I PUT A SPECIFIC QUESTION TO MR. BHATTACHERJEE AS TO WHETHER ANY OF THE SAID ENTRY OPERATORS HAD EVER QU OTED ASSESSEES NAME OR NOT. THE REPLIES IS RECEIVED IN NEGATIVE. COUPLED W ITH THIS, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN REVENUES ARGUMENT THAT SIMILAR ADDITION(S) STAN D AFFIRMED IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) FOR THE REASON THAT SEC . 68 ADDITION IS A FACTUAL ISSUE REQUIRING THE TAXPAYER TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE RELEVANT SUM CREDITED. I MA KE IT CLEAR THAT ALL THESE ASSESSEES HAVE PLACED SUFFICIENT MATERIALS ON RECOR D INDICATING THEM TO HAVE DERIVED THE IMPUGNED LTCG FORM SALE OF SHARES HELD IN M/S UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD. ONLY. I THEREFORE DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION (S) RESPECTIVELY. BROKERAGE COMMISSION DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, THEREUPON SHALL AU TOMATIC STOOD AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY . 5. COUPLED WITH THIS, I FIND THAT HON'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURTS VARIOUS DECISIONS IN PCIT VS BIB CABLES AND CONDUCTORS ITAT NO. 78 OF 2017, GA NO.747/2017 DECIDED ON 19.06.2018, M/S CLASSIC GROW ERS VS. CIT ITA NO. 129/2012 , CIT VS. LAKSHMANGARH ESTATE AND TRADING CO. LTD. (2013) 40 TAXMANN. ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 44 COMMISSION 439 (CAL), CIT VS. SHREYASHI GANGULI (IT A NO. 196 OF 2012 & CIT VS. REENGLA PROPERTIES ITA 105 OF 2016 (SUPRA) , HAVE A LREADY DECLINED REVENUES VERY STAND DOUBTING GENUINENESS OF SHARE PURCHASED / SAL ES TRANSACTIONS RESULTING IN LTCG AND LOSSES BASED AS MERE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES I N ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. 6. MR. SINGH AT THIS STAGE HAS TAKEN A LOT OF PAINS FOR FILING THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN STATEMENT:- THE APPEAL IN QUESTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-10, KOLKATA UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICER'S AD DITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE APPELLANTS DEALING IN SHARE TRADING IN PENNY STOCK SCRIPS, NAMELY GLOBAL INFRATECH & FINANCE LTD., WHEREIN THE PROFITS THEREON WERE DISC LOSED AS LTCG AND DULY DERIVED THE CONSEQUENTIAL TAX BENEFITS OF EXEMPTION U/S 10( 38). THE AO, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S. 143(3), HAD T REATED THE LTCG DERIVED FROM SHARE DEALINGS IN THESE SCRIPTS AS BOGUS AND ADDED BACK THE LTCG AT RS.17,78,760 U/S 68. IT CIT(A)S ORDER BE RELIED UPON, WHICH IS SELF-SP EAKING AND EXPLANATORY. ALTERNATIVELY , AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE PLEA, THE APPE LLANT IS SEEN TO HAVE RAISED THE PLEA IN SL NO.7 AND 8 OF GROUNDS OF APPE AL BEFORE HON. ITAT THAT THE AO ARRIVED AT HIS CONCLUSIONS BY FLOUTING THE PRINCIPL E OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. NEXT, BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THIS PLEA WAS NOT AGITATED , SO THE LD CIT(A) COULD NOT ADJUDICATE UPON THIS ISSUE, HENCE, THE MATER MAY BE SENT BACK TO CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. N THIS CONNECTION, IT IS WORTHWHILE MENTIONING THAT IN RESPECT OF FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, RELIANCE MAY BE PLAC ED ON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF [1994] 210 ITR 103 (CAL), H IGH COURT OF CALCUTTA, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. EASTERN COMMERCIAL EN TERPRISES, WHEREIN MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE AO TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTE R FULLY AND PROPERLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLAC ED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE ON SIMILAR LINES: 1. [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM) GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX 2. [2015] 59 TAXMANN.COM 212 (DELHI-TRIB.) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCHE NOKIA INDIA (P) LTD. V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-T AX, CIRCLE-2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI 3. [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 185 (JAIPUR-TRIB.) INI THE ITAT JAIAPUR BENCH P.R. ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A GROUP OF JUDGM ENTS WHEREIN THE MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE AO ALONG WITH DIRECTION TO MAKE AV AILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE THE REPORTS OF INVESTIGATION WING, RELIED ON DURING ASS ESSMENT, AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT(S) RECORDED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS/INDIVIDU ALS/BROKERS BEFORE INVESTIGATION WING. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON, MO STLY BY CHENNAI ITAT, ON CIT VS. SUNITA DHADDA (SUPREME COURT ON JUNE 6, 2018: ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 45 SL NO. CASE LAW CITATION PENNY STOCK IN QUESTION 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI, CHENNAI VS. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), ON 6 APRIL, 2018 C BENCH : CHENNAI ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 PANCHSHUL MARKETING LTD. (PML) 2 ARVIND KUMAR, CHENNAI VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ON 8 NOVEMBER, 2018, ITAT SMT BENCH: CHENNAI BAKRA PRATISTHAN LTD 3 MR. VIKRAM DUGHAR, CHENNAI VS. ITO, ON 13 NOVEMBER, 2018, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ABENCH: CHENNAI AY 2014-15. ESSAR (INDIA) LIMITED 4 SMT. SDHANA, BANGALORE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE ON 26 MAY, 2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMT BBENCH : BANGALORE AY: 2008-09 N/A IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE ASSESSEES H AD BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THEIR BROKERS FOR THE PROPOSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AN D A FEW CASES INVOLVED CONCESSIONS ON PART OF THE ASSESSEES IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S) BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I FIND NO MERIT IN EITHER OF REVENUES CON TENTIONS. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE LEARNED CO-ORDINATE BENCH(ES) HAVE TAKEN NOTE O F HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISIONS (SUPRA) ON THE VERY ISSUE DECLINING REVEN UES APPEAL(S) PREFERRED AGAINST THE TRIBUNALS ORDERS DELETING IDENTICAL ADDITION(S) BA SED ON RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS IN QUEST ION. 7. COMING TO BROKERS STATEMENT RECORDED IN PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE (PRADEEP KUMAR PANSARI HUF VS. ITO WARD-48(1) IN ITA NO.1649/KOL/2018 FOR AY 2014-15, I FIND THAT THE SAID BROKER NOWHERE SUPPORTED THE R EVENUES CASE ALLEGING ANY CASH COMPONENT IN THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS. SO IS THE O UTCOME OF REVENUES LATTER APPEALS ALLEGING ASSESSEES CONCESSION IN ITA NO.1629, 1630 & 1639/KOL/2018 AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK RECOURSE TO A DETAILED ADJUD ICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S). THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DE CISION IN (2017) 60 ITR (TRIB) 1 (BANG) CANARA BANK VS. JCIT HOLDS THAT THE ESTOPPLE PRINCIPLE DOES NOT APPLY IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. I THEREFORE REJECT REVENUE S ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF IMPUGNED ADDITION(S). I TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE R ELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO ADOPT THE LEARNED CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DETAILED REAS ONING EXTRACTED IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 46 PARAGRAPHS MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S) FORMING SUBJECT - MATTER OF ALL THE INSTANT APPEAL(S). COMMISSION EXP ENDITURE DISALLOWANCE; IF ANY, SHALL AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW SUIT AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY. NO OTHER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE ME DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 8. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THE INSTANT COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILE(S). ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15/03/2019 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE R KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 15/03/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / ASSESSEE-ADITYA SARAF(HUF), CF-265, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-I, KOLKATA-91/ RINKI AGARWAL, FLAT N O. 503, GANGA APARTMENT, MANGAL PANDEY ROAD, SILIGURI, DARJE ELING-734405/REKHA AGARWAL, CENTRAL PLAZA, ROOM NO.5M, 5 TH FLOOR, 41, B.B.GANGULY STREET, KOLKATA-12/M/S M.P. KEDIA HUF,29, R.N .MUKHERJEE ROAD, WINDSOR HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.15, KOL KATA-001/M/S SHRAWAN KR. AGRAWAL HUF LEVEL-3, CENTRAL PLAZA , C-11, 41, B.B GANGULY STREET, KOLKATA-12/ P.K. AGARWAL(HUF), BLO CK-3, FLAT 6C, AVANI OXFORD, 136, JESSORE ROAD, LAKE TOWN-KOLKA TA-55/ SMT. UMA JARIA, H.NO.2482, SRI SRI KUTIR, SECTOR-79, MO HALI-160055/JAYA MADHOGARIA, VIVEK MADHOGARIA, SANDEEP M ADHOGHARIA (HUF) C/O S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY, AVENUE, KOLKAT-19/SURENDRA SHARMA VIKRAM VIHAR , BUNGLOW NO.29/30, 3 RD FL, 493/B/61, G.T. ROAD, (SOUTH) HO WRAH-711102/SAMIR BAID, 3-B, LAL BAZAR STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-001/SMT. PAYAL SARAF, CF-265, SALT LAKE CITY, SECDTORO-1, KOL KAT-91/SMT. REKHA PATWARI, 3 RD FL, R. NO.190 METAL MARKET, 157, NET EAJI SUBHAS ROAD, BURRABAZAR, KOLKATA-001/ SHANKAR LAL DARUKA (H UF), SIMA DARUKA 8, PEARY MOHAN MUKHERJEE STREET, BDE LURMATH, HOWRAH-711202/EFFERVESCENT COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. C/O RSVPC & CO. 41A, A.J.C. BOSE RD. SUITE NO.613, 6 TH FL. KOLKATA-17/SHRI VINEEK KANODIA, SHRI VISHAL KANODIA, 2 ND FL, BD-76, SALT LAKE, KOLKATA-91/SHRI DILIP SINGHA ROY, SMT. SIKHA SINGH A ROY, DEEPSHIKHA, KHANRO SULTANPUR MORE, P.O. MEMARI, BURDWAN- 713146/ALOKE JAIN & SUNIL KR. RANDER C/O ADVOCATE PRADIP LAKHO TIA, 2 ND FL, METRO PLAZA, SF RD., SILIGURI-734005/ SRI VIKASH GOEL, C/O S.C BAID & ORS. 4, RAJA WOODMUNT ST. 2 ND FL. KOL-001/ RITU GUPTA & RASHMI GUP TA, C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69/PRADEEP KR. PANSARI HUF, SRI GANGA APARTMENT, 23, GUHA PARK, 3 RD FLOOR, LILUAH, HOWRAH-711204/ DILIP KR. AGARWAL, C/O R AJ SINGHANIA, CENTAL PLAZA, 41, B.B.GANGULY ST. ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 47 5 TH FLOOR, BOWBAZAR, KOLKATA-12/OM PRAKASH SONI, 29B, BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD, KOLAKTA-1 9/SMT. NEELAM JHUNJHUNWALA-SMT NITA JHUNJHUNWALA 203, 204 BL OCK NO C/3 2 ND FL. FLOWER VALLEY, 493, G.T. ROAD, (SOUTH), SHBP UR, HOWRAH-711102/SHREE NIWAS LAHOTI/L/H MOHAN LAL LAHOTI 171, R AMKRISHNA LANE, SHIBPUR OP. PALLY MATH, HOWRAH-711102/SUNIL KR. HARBHAJANKA, L/H LT SMT. RAJ KUMARI HARBHAJANKA, 260 UPENDR A CH. BANERJEE RD, 4 TH FL, KOLKATA/SMT. SANTOSH MUNDRA, 5-B, JUDGES COU RT ROAD, ALIPORE, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-27/ROHIT PATWARI, 3 RD FL, R.NO.190, 157, N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-001/MUKESH S ARAOGI (HUF) 10, CLIVE ROW, 6 TH FL, R.NO.IR, RAMPURIA CHAMBER, KOLKATKA-001/ PREMIER TIE-UP PVT. LT D. 30/1, S.M. ALI RD. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATAA-120/ NAROTTAMKA TRADING & FI NVEST PVT. LTD. 21, BIPIN BEHARI GANGULI ST. 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-12/DILIP KR. SANCHETI/ C/O ADVOCATE PRADIP LAKHOTIA, 2 ND FLOOR, METRO PLAZA, SF ROAD, SILIGURI-734005 2. % /REVENUE-ITO WD-50(3), UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, MANIKTOL A CIVIC CENTRE, ULTADANGA, KOLKATA-5 4/ITO WARD-36(1)/ITO WD-35(4)/ITO WD 36(3)/35(1) AYAKAR B HAWAN, (POORVA)110, SHANTIPALLY, KOL-107/ ITO WD-48(4), 3, GOV T. PLACE, KOLAKTA-700001/ITO WD-47(4)/ ITO WD-48(4), 3, GOV T. PLACE, KOLAKTA-001/ITO WD-36(3)/ ITO WD-36(1)POORVA, 8 TH FLOOR, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKAT-107/ITO WD-50(3), UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, MANIKTOLA CIVIC CENTRE, ULTADANGA KOLKATA-54/ ITO WD-4 8(4)/ITO WD-46(4), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST) KOLKAT-001/ITO WD-1(1 ), P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQ. KOLKATA-69/ITO WD-64(4), AAYAKAR BH AWAN, 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, BAMBOO VILLA, KOLKATA/ITO WD -2(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN, COURT COMPOUND, BURDWAN-713101/ITO W D-1(1) & 2-(2), PARIBAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA SILIGURI/ITO WD-63(4 ), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-47 (1)/ ITO WD-34(3)/ITO WD-48(1)/ITO WD-48(1) ITO WD-34(3) 3, GOVT. PL ACE, KOLKATA-001/ITO WD-35(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY , KOLKATA-107/ITO 47(2)-ITO WD-47(3), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKAT-001 /ITO WD-36(1)/ITO WD-35(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WARD-63(1), POO RVA, 8 TH FL. AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AJC BOSE ROAD, BAMBOOVILLA, KOLKATA-14/ITO WD-1(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ. 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-69/ITO WD-1(3), PARIBAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI 3. & ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( - / CIT (A) 5. ) ,,& , & / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. . / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / &, ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2014-15 2015-16, 2013-14 & 200 9-10 PAGE 48