46 Cash credit – Section 68 – A. Y. 2005-06 – Amount claimed to be long-term capital gains – Evidence of contract and payments through banks – Tribunal wrong in disregarding entire evidence and sustaining addition on sole basis of late recording on demat passbook – Addition u/s. 68 not justified

Assessee is an individual. For the A. Y. an addition of Rs. 11,77,000 was made which according to the assessee was long term capital gain on sale of 11,000 share of a company. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the long term capital gain and made a corresponding addition of Rs. 11,77,000 u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the “Act”). On appeal, the assessee adduced evidence in the shape of contract notes/bill receipt, payments made through banking channels, contract notes and copies of pass book of its demat account in support of its claim and asserted its claim of long term capital gain as genuine and correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) after a detailed examination of the case of the assessee and evidence adduced by the assessee including the entries in the demat account passbook, the evidence of the broker firms through whom the transactions were made, and the contract note dated November 10, 2003, allowed the appeal. The Tribunal restored the addition on the sole ground of purchase of shares having been recorded late in the demat account of the assessee.

On appeal by the assessee, the Allahabad High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i)    An order recorded on a review of only a part of the evidence and ignoring the remaining evidence cannot be regarded as conclusively determining the question of fact raised before the Tribunal.

ii)    Although the fact of the purchase transaction being recorded late in the demat passbook raised a doubt as to its genuineness and this evidence was relevant to the issue, there existed other evidence, adduced by the assessee in this case, in the shape of contract notes, bank transactions pertaining to payment for purchase and sale of shares and other material relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had also not specifically dealt with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals).

iii)    In view of this, the finding of the Tribunal and the consequential order could not be sustained. The addition could not be made.”