Ajitraj Kankriya HUF, Chennai V. Ito ncw 4(1), CHENNAI

ITA 3133/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3173 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNILK KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 3133/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. SHRI. AJITRAJ KANKRIYA (HUF) NO.4, MANGAPPAN STREET, 1 ST FLOOR, OFFICE NO.4, 4, SOWCARPET CHENNAI 600 079. [ PAN AAAHA 1672C ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICXR NON CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SUNILK KUMAR JAIN, FCA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 14-02-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-02-2019 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS D IRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 26.10.2017 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED THAT ITS CLAI M OF EXEMPTION ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF B1,06,34,931/- ON SALE O F EQUITY SHARES WAS NOT ALLOWED AND LD.CIT(A) ENHANCED THE ADDITION U/S .68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) TO B1,08,39,93 1/-. ITA NO.3133/MDS/2017. :- 2 -: 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF B5,44,680/-. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF B1, 06,34,931/- ON SALE OF 205000 SHARES IN ONE M/S. LUMINAIRE TECHNOL OGIES LTD EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT. TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON THE SALE WAS B1,08,39,931/-. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON INFO RMATION COMING OUT OF INVESTIGATIONS DONE BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOM E TAX (INV) KOLKATA, CAME TO AN OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS WAS ON SALE OF PENNY STOCK OF A PAPER COMPANY, OPERATED BY AN ENTRY OPERATOR CALLED SHRI. DEEPAK PATWARI. AS PER LD. A SSESSING OFFICER SHRI. DEEPAK PATWARI HAD INDENTIFIED THE SCRIPT OF LUMI NAIREIRE TECHNOLOGIES LTD, AS ONE OF SUCH PENNY STOCK COMPAN IES AND ALSO IDENTIFIED THE PERSONS TO WHOM HE HAD PROVIDED BOG US LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. FURTHER, AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASSESSEES NAME APPEARED IN SUCH LIST. HE CONCLUDED THAT SHRI. D EEPAK PATWARI HAD IN HIS STATEMENT ACCEPTED THE CREATION OF BOGUS ENT RIES FOR TAKING ADVANTAGE OF EXEMPTION GIVEN UNDER SECTION 10(38) O F THE ACT ON CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SALE OF SHARES. THUS, HE HELD THAT CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTA BLE. THE CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE AMOUNT OF B1,06,34,931/- WAS ADDED U/S.68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.3133/MDS/2017. :- 3 -: 3. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOT ONLY HELD THAT CAPITAL GA INS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF THE SHARES COULD NOT BE ACCEPT ED, BUT ALSO ENHANCED THE ADDITION TO B1,08,39,931/- BEING THE T OTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF THE SHARES. 4. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI. DEEPAK PATWARI WAS NEVER MAD E AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ASSESSEE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAID PERSON. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE, THE REPORTS OF INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (CALCUTTA) R ELIED ON BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO NOT PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS GROSS VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIMAL CHAND GULAB CHAND VS. ITO, PRAVEEN CHAND VS. ITO, M AHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI C VS. ITO (ITA NO.2003/2017, 1721/2017, 22 93/17 & 2748/17, DATED 06.4.2018). 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUB MITTED THAT WHOLE TRANSACTIONS WERE SHAM AND MAKE BELIEF. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SUM OF B58,53,940/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.3133/MDS/2017. :- 4 -: RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANUNGA VS. ITO (ITA 2786 & 2787/2017 , DATED 03.05.2018). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. LUMINAI RE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO HOW IT IDENTIFIED EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.PARDHI PROPE RTIES LTD., FOR MAKING AN OFF MARKET PURCHASE. ASSESSEE HAD RECEIV ED THE SHARES IN M/S. LUMINAIRE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. BY VIRTUE OF ITS HOLDING IN M/S.PARDHI PROPERTIES LTD, WHEN THE LATTER WAS MERGED WITH TH E FORMER. IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEERACHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA) RELIED ON B Y THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHAT WAS HELD BY THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 9. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ADM ITTEDLY GIVEN ROOM FOR SUSPICION. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION. IT HAS TO B E SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND THE FACTS ARE UNFORTUNATELY NOT FORTHCOMING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN THE ORDER O F THE LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MA IN FOUNDATION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN WHO HAS ADM ITTED TO HAVE PROVIDED BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO H IS CLIENTS. THE SAID SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN ALSO ALLEG EDLY SEEMS TO HAVE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEES NAME AND PAN AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. HOWEVER, THIS STATEMENT G IVEN BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT IN SO FAR AS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS- ITA NO.3133/MDS/2017. :- 5 -: EXAMINATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION, THE STATEMENT REMAINS MERE INFORMATION AND SUCH INFORMATION CANNOT BE FOUNDATION FOR ASSESSMEN T. 10. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED 15000 SHARES FROM M/S.BPL @ RS.20/- PER S HARE TOTALING INTO RS.3,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PAID CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES. THE PRIMARY QUESTION WOULD BE AS TO WHERE THE PURCHASE WAS DONE? IF THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN DONE IN KOLKATA, HOW WAS THE CASH TRANSFERRED? WHEN DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SHA RE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS? HOW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3)? WAS THERE ADEQUATE CASH AVAILABILITY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSE SSEE ON 24.04.2008? DID THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED TO KOLKATA? HOW WAS THE TRANSACTION DONE? WHO APPLIED FOR THE DEMAT ING OF THE SHARES? WHEN WERE THEY DEMATED? WHEN WERE THE SHARES TRANSFERRED TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE? TO WHOM WERE THE SHARES SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2010-11 & 2011-12? WHEN WERE THE CHEQUES RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE? FROM WHOM DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED T HE CHEQUES? WAS THERE ANY CASH DEPOSIT IMMEDIATELY PRI OR TO THE ISSUING OF THE CHEQUE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASER OF THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE? 11. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA NO.7. 1 SHOWS THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE STATE S THAT HE HAS PURCHASED 15000 SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM M/S.ABPL , KOLKATA. HOWEVER, IN PARA NO.8.3, IT IS MENTIONED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH HAS PURCHASED THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM A SUB-BROKER IN HIS FRIENDS CIRCLE. WHAT IS TH E TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION? FROM WHOM DID THE ASSESSEE ACTU ALLY PURCHASE THE SHARES? DID THE ASSESSEE TAKE POSSESSI ON OF THE SHARES IN ITS PHYSICAL FORM? IN PARA NO.8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR AND HAS BEEN REGULARLY TRADING IN SHARES. IF THIS IS SO, DOES THE DEMAT ACCOUNT SHOW SUCH TRANSACTIONS B EING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IS THIS THE ONLY ONE OF TRA NSACTION. THUS, CLEARLY THE FACTS REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATING T HE APPEALS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVE R TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. THIS IS BECAUSE ASSUMING THAT THE DEMAT HAS BEEN DONE AND THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL HAS COME INTO THE ASSESSEES DEMAT ACCOUNT AND HAS IMMEDIATELY FLOWN OUT. THEN THE FACTUM OF THE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS HAVE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HIS IS ALSO NOT FORTHCOMING. IN REPLY TO A SPECIFIC QUERY, AS THE DATE OF THE DEMAT OF SHARES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE DEMAT WAS DONE ON VARIOUS DATES. THEN THE QUEST ION RISES AS TO WHY THERE IS SO MUCH OF DIFFERENCE IN T HE DATES OF ITA NO.3133/MDS/2017. :- 6 -: DEMATING WHEN 15000 SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TOGE THER ON 24.04.2008. NO DETAILS IN RESPECT OF M/S.BPL COM PANY IS KNOWN, WHAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY TO GO UP FROM RS.20/ - TO RS.352/- IN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. THIS WOULD CLEAR LY BE A CASE WHERE THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY WAS HITTI NG THE CIRCUIT BREAKER OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE ON A DAILY BA SIS AND OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION. THIS BEING SO, AS THE FACTS ARE NOT COMING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R NOR THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASS ESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE I TS CASE AND WE DO SO. 12. THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVE THE TRANSACTION OF THE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S.10(38) BY PROVIDING ALL SUCH EVID ENCES AS REQUIRED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AS ALS O BY PRODUCING THE PERSONS THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE TRANSACTION OF THE PURC HASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SUB- BROKER, FRIEND AND THE BROKER THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DONE, BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. IN LINE WITH THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT QUESTION REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDE RATION, WHO HAS TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTI ATE ITS CASE. REVENUE HAS TO FURNISH TO THE ASSESSEE ALL THE STA TEMENTS RELIED ON BY THEM. USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNITA DHADDA, SLP (CIVIL ) NO.9432/2018, DATED 28.03.2018 , WHILE AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF ITA NO.3133/MDS/2017. :- 7 -: HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.SMT. SUNITA DHADDA , WHERE THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN STRESSED. THEIR LORDS HIP HELD THAT THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ONLY AFTER ALL THE STEPS REQUIRED UNDER LAW IS COMPLETE, IT CAN BE AS CERTAINED WHETHER CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS BOGUS OR NOT. WE THEREFO RE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 2TH DAY OF FEBRUA RY, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !' / CHENNAI #$ / DATED:25TH FEBRUARY, 2019. KV $%&& '(&)( / COPY TO: & 1 . / APPELLANT 3. & *&+, / CIT(A) 5. (-.& / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. & * / CIT 6. .0&1 / GF