{"id":5240,"date":"2018-04-21T14:00:53","date_gmt":"2018-04-21T08:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/?p=5240"},"modified":"2018-04-24T10:48:36","modified_gmt":"2018-04-24T05:18:36","slug":"penny-stocks-modus-operandi-for-generating-bogus-capital-gains-law-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/penny-stocks-modus-operandi-for-generating-bogus-capital-gains-law-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"Penny Stocks: Capital Gains, Law &#038; Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-content\/uploads\/Paras_S._Savla_Advocate.jpg\" alt=\"Paras_S._Savla,_Advocate\" width=\"98\" height=\"100\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-5241\" \/><\/p>\n<p><strong>Advocate Paras S. Savla has explained the modus operandi used by unscrupulous taxpayers to launder their unaccounted black money with the aid of bogus capital gains from Penny Stocks. He has also explained the relevant statutory provisions and discussed all the important judgements on the point. He has, however, cautioned that all cases of capital gains from penny stocks cannot be branded by the authorities as bogus and offered advice on what precautions taxpayers should take to avoid being wrongly assessed to tax <\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>Humans! We keep  bringing new ideas and creations to simplify our lives and yet end up creating  an intricate and complicated web which is anything but simple. We graduated  from bartering to commerce and trading to make our lives easy and then to  complicate the whole thing, we invented an abstract entity called &ldquo;company&rdquo; to  limit our risk. <\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>A legal notion of Corporate personhood backed by various  legislations across the globe, legalizing companies created a corporation,  separate from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or  employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed  by natural persons (physical humans). This notion was blessed by House of lords  in famous case of <em>Salomon v. A. Salomon and <\/em><em>Co.<\/em><em> Ltd. (1897) AC 22.<\/em> These brought about rise of trading of shares  and thus formation of Stock Exchanges. In this paper my discussion is  restricted to tax implications on penny stocks. <\/p>\n<h2>1. What are penny stocks?<\/h2>\n<p>The word &ldquo;penny stocks&rdquo;  comes with a lot of connotations. However, it&rsquo;s a common term that simply  refers to stocks that trade at low prices per share off of major national  exchanges. Penny stocks are defined by the US Securities and Exchange  Commission (SEC) as a security that trades for less than $5 per share, is not listed  on a national exchange, and fails to meet other specific criteria. In the UK, they&rsquo;re called penny shares, and they&rsquo;re  categorised in a similar way (although the stock price limit is &pound;1). Other  countries call them cent stocks.<\/p>\n<p>Over the years, the term &ldquo;penny stock&rdquo; has become synonymous with scams  and &ldquo;get rich quick&rdquo; schemes. One Google Search will reveal thousands of  results promising to make you the next penny stock multimillionaire. Not all  penny stocks are a scam. However, penny stock markets are abound with  low-quality companies, shadow organisations, and pump-and-dump schemes &ndash; and a  few legitimate companies mixed in for good measure. Penny stocks have existed  in some form or another for as long as stock markets have existed. There&rsquo;s very  little information about the early history of penny stocks. After the 1929  Stock Market Crash, however, the US Federal Government realised it needed to  overhaul securities regulation and bring an end to the unbridled speculation  surrounding penny stocks. In the Government&rsquo;s eyes, the speculation was what  caused the stock markets to crash in 1929. Increased regulation would help  investors avoid low-quality, value-less stocks while promoting stocks from more  reputable companies &ndash; or at least, that was the idea.<\/p>\n<p>Starting in the mid-1990s, penny stock trading exploded with growth,  fuelled by the spread of the internet around the world. Prior to the internet,  the only real way to trade penny stocks was by phone or over the counter at a  stocks exchange floor. Now, with the internet, penny stock discount brokers  emerged, offering online platforms where traders could buy and sell penny  stocks at discount rates. Investors were lured to penny stocks by the promises  of cheap trading fees and the chance of making enormous profits on tiny  investments. Throughout the 1990s, new investors entered the stock market. <\/p>\n<p>Penny stocks in the Indian stock market can have prices ranging from ` 5 to 20.  These stocks are very speculative in nature and are considered highly risky  because of lack of liquidity, smaller number of shareholders, large bid-ask  spreads and limited disclosure of information. Considering the nature of penny  stocks, they are susceptible to frauds and scams. Hence one has to be cautious  while investing in such stocks.<\/p>\n<h2>2. News and web-articles<\/h2>\n<p>Government is making continuous efforts to curb black money and to stop  various schemes being tools used to convert black money, one may still see  various and continuous advertisement are made for penny stocks, which can be  seen as under:  <\/p>\n<p>a) <u><a href=\"https:\/\/rakesh-jhunjhunwala.in\">https:\/\/rakesh-jhunjhunwala.in<\/a><\/u> dt.21st February, 2018<\/p>\n<p> <a href=\"https:\/\/rakesh-jhunjhunwala.in\/radhakishan-damani-endorses-porinju-veliyaths-chor-theory-buys-recommended-stock\/\">RadhakishanDamani  endorses PorinjuVeliyath&rsquo;s &ldquo;Chor&rdquo; Theory &amp; Buys Recommended stock.<\/a><\/p>\n<p><em>PorinjuVeliyath&rsquo;s  theory with regard to buying stocks of &ldquo;Chor&rdquo; promoters has been  cold-shouldered by investors. However, the endorsement of the theory by none  other than billionaire RadhakishanDamani means that we can no longer ignore it  but have to pay attention and implement it.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>  Porinju explained that there is a world of a difference between a &ldquo;good  company&rdquo; and a &ldquo;good stock&rdquo;, implying that even a &ldquo;bad company&rdquo; can be  investment worthy if it has the necessary virtues. <\/p>\n<p>b) <u><a href=\"https:\/\/multibaggerpennystocks.in\">https:\/\/multibaggerpennystocks.in<\/a><\/u> dt.  10th February, 2018 <\/p>\n<p> <em><a href=\"https:\/\/multibaggerpennystocks.in\/20-multibagger-penny-stocks-cost-less-rs-10-give-gains-750-2017\/\">20 multibagger penny stocks which cost less than <\/em>` <em>10 give  gains of up to 750% in 2017<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p>c) Business standard dt. 8th February, 2018 <\/p>\n<p> CAG seeks SEBI explanation on losses due to long  term capital gains benefit. <\/p>\n<p> <em>&ldquo;The Comptroller and  Auditor General of India (CAG) has  written to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) seeking an explanation on the loss incurred by the  exchequer from misuse of the long-term capital gains (LTCG) exemption.  According to sources, the market regulator has identified loss worth Rs 150  billion due to price manipulation on the stock market platform to avail the  LTCG benefit. So far, Sebi has  passed nine interim orders in the matter. Besides, the CAG has sought details of the manipulators.  Currently, LTCG is exempt from taxes. The Union Budget 2018-19 proposed to levy  a 10 per cent tax on such gains, starting April 1. The regulators have come  across several cases were shares of penny stocks and shell companies were  jacked up to convert black money into white by showing LTCG. <\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;The audit  authority wants to know the size of the preferential allotment and whether it  would be equal to the size of the LTCG violation, especially when the allottee  sold the shares,&rdquo; said a person in the know. In the last one year, the  regulator has examined over 14,000 persons but could not establish the trail of  fund movement. It was yet to gather sufficient evidence and references to  conclude the cases, sources said. Even the information provided by the tax  authorities was not sufficient to establish connections among the promoters of  these companies, the beneficiaries and the &lsquo;last traded price&rsquo; providers and  &lsquo;exit&rsquo; providers, said the person cited above. In January 2017, the regulator  had informed the income tax (I-T) department that there was not enough evidence  to establish charges against the manipulators. Sebi, in one of its board  information memorandums in 2017, had pointed out practical problems in dealing  with these cases. &ldquo;Enforcement proceedings against such a large number of  entities will involve issuing a show-cause notice, inspection of documents,  personal hearing and passing of orders. <\/p>\n<p>This is when preliminary examination of  cases revealed that collusion among the entities was weak or absent, since most  of the transactions were settled in cash. Thus, a further probe based on weak  evidence will clog the system and could also result in a futile exercise,&rdquo; it  had said. Official data suggests the I-T department had referred 361 scrips to Sebi for investigating the LTCG  manipulation. Of these, Sebi had  identified 144 scrips for investigation and concluded investigation in 94 cases  during that time. Accordingly, it had barred 1,500 people from trading in the  securities market. <\/p>\n<p>Further investigations revealed that over 14,000 people were  involved in price manipulation to avail the tax exemption. These were apart  from the 64,000 entities identified by the taxman as having evaded taxes worth ` 380  billion. The regulator is examining if the price of shares was manipulated,  since it could proceed under Section 11B of the Sebi Act. This allows it to  impound or retain the sale proceeds of the company or entity in question. Sebi is of view that it is bound to  check only for market manipulation and not the tax evasion angle in these  cases.&rdquo;<\/em><\/p>\n<p>d) <u>https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com<\/u>dt.  13th January, 2018 <\/p>\n<p> W<em>hy investing in  low priced penny stocks is not a good idea<\/em><\/p>\n<p>e) <u>https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com<\/u>dt.  21st February, 2018 <\/p>\n<p> <em>37,000% return!!! This is what a penny stock can do to  your wealth <\/em><\/p>\n<p>f) https:\/\/thewire.in\/120384\/penny-stocks-bogus-claims-sebi dt.  31st March 2017 <\/p>\n<p> SEBI Cracks Down on Misuse of Penny Stocks<\/p>\n<p>g) https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com dt. 6th March,   2017 <\/p>\n<p> <em>Beware of these 774 rising penny stocks; stock  exchanges up vigil <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em> &ldquo;Mumbai: Stock exchanges have  stepped up vigil on movements of smaller and penny stocks in the wake of the  sharp surge in their prices. The <\/em><em>Bombay<\/em><em> Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange  of <\/em><em>India<\/em><em> have included 774 lesser-known companies under a  graded surveillance measures framework, which is aimed at checking whether the  recent advancement in their stock prices was commensurate with their financial  health and fundamentals.&rdquo; <\/em><\/p>\n<p>h) <u>https:\/\/www.moneycontrol.com\/news\/business\/markets\/i-t-department-sebi-begin-crackdown-on-penny-stock-firms-in-pmo-led-push-2442315.html<\/u> dt.20th November, 2017<\/p>\n<p> <em>I-T Department,  SEBI begin crackdown on penny stock firms in PMO-led push. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em> The Prime Minister&rsquo;s  Office apprised the CBDT of 80 scrips earlier this month. The taxman and SEBI  are working together to clamp down tax evasion and tighten the norms.<\/em><\/p>\n<h2>3. Search, surveys and the investigation report<\/h2>\n<p>There are various previous instances where Department investigated in  penny stock matters. Not once but twice, Investigation has been conducted on  Mr. MukeshChokshi and one may notice many judicial decisions wherein shares  dealings took place through his broking firms. On analyzing those decisions one  may see that the information collected by the department was not foolproof and  the government lost badly in those cases. This turned out a fight for the  department to nail down illegal and fraudulent practices in and around penny  stocks. <\/p>\n<h3>3.1 Kolkata Investigation report<\/h3>\n<p>The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata had undertaken the  investigation on a much larger scale than earlier and as a result, they  identified a very large number of beneficiaries who may have together taken a  huge amount of bogus entries of LTCG. A detailed investigation report dt. 24-7-2015 named &ldquo;Project bogus LTCG\/STCL through BSE  listed penny stocks&rdquo; was made. The span of investigation can be gauged from the  fact that they identified 64,811 beneficiaries involving bogus LTCG of nearly ` 38,000  crore. <\/p>\n<p>As per the report, the illegal business of bogus LTCG involves three  different personalities. The promoter of &lsquo;Penny stock&rsquo; companies (also known as  syndicate member), the share brokers &amp; the entry operator who purchases the  shares through paper companies by taking cash. Many a times the three  categories of individuals perform overlapping roles and, at times, a single  individual may perform all the three functions. <\/p>\n<p>In the earlier investigations, the approach was to target the  individuals and through them identify the penny stocks and beneficiaries. This  method yielded results on a limited scale emanating only from individual \/  individuals targeted. However, keeping in mind the rampant nature and  exponential growth of alleged illegal business in recent times and to cast the  net wide, during Kolkata investigations, Department reversed the methodology of  investigation. &lsquo;Penny Stocks&rsquo; were first identified and then department started  targeting the individuals who dealt in them. As a result, department was able  to virtually uncover almost all Kolkata based operators in one investigation  itself. It was an on-going process, which acquired the character of a project  that continued for quite some time, unlike usual investigation which ends with  the statement of the individual involved. <\/p>\n<h3>3.2 Modus operandi as per the report<\/h3>\n<p>As per the report the  business of providing entries of bogus LTCG over the years has become much more  organised and with economy of scale in full operation the stakes involved had  become huge. Before the actual transaction starts taking place, there were  brokers in different towns who contact prospective clients and took paper  booking for entries. The commission to be paid to the operators was decided at  this stage however, no money was paid. Once the booking is complete, the  operators have a reasonably good idea of how much LTCG is to be provided along  with the break-up of individual beneficiaries. This data is essential to decide  which penny stock or companies to use for the job and which beneficiary to buy  how many shares.<\/p>\n<h4><em>3.2.1 Types of Penny stock companies<\/em> <\/h4>\n<p>Broadly speaking there are two types of companies.<\/p>\n<p>a) An old already listed  company, the entire shareholding of which is bought by the syndicate to provide  LTCG entries. These are generally dormant companies with no business and with  accumulated losses.<\/p>\n<p>b) A new company which is  floated just for the purpose giving LTCG entries. Such new companies are often  floated after the initial booking is complete and the capital base is decided  keeping in mind the entries to be provided.<\/p>\n<h4><em>3.2.2 The entities involved in the transactions<\/em> <\/h4>\n<p>As mentioned earlier there are three categories of individuals who are  involved in the transactions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>a) Syndicate Members<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> They are the promoters of the Penny Stock companies who  own the initial shareholding mostly in the name of paper companies either in a  fresh IPO or purchased from the shareholders of a dormant company. They are  usually a group of 4-5 individuals who are also referred to as Syndicate  Members and are sometimes also referred to as Operators. Their nominees are  directors of the Penny Stock companies which are indirectly controlled by them  through such dummy directors. The whole operation is managed by them. They get  the net commission income from the transactions. Their name however, seldom  appear in the actual transactions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>b) The Brokers<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> These are registered  brokers through whom shares are traded both online and offline. They are fully  aware of the nature of transactions and get paid a commission over and above  their normal brokerage. Some of the big broking houses are also indulging in  such transactions mostly through sub-brokers. Even Calcutta Stock Exchange has  registered itself as a broker with BSE and has given a large number of  terminals to sub-brokers who are dealing into this type of transactions. In the  said investigation, some of the sub-brokers of big broking houses like Anand  Rathi, Religare Securities, SMC etc. were also uncovered. As a standard <em>modus  operandi,<\/em> the brokers often compromise on KMC norms of the clients to help  the Syndicate Members.<\/p>\n<p><strong>c) The Entry Operators<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> These are individuals  who control a large number of paper\/shell companies which are used for routing  cash for the transactions as well as buying and selling shares during the  process of price rigging. They work for commission to be paid by the Syndicate  Members. To cut cost sometimes in smaller operations, the same group perform  more than one function.<\/p>\n<h3><em>3.2.3 The Transaction<\/em> <\/h3>\n<h4><em>3.2.3.1 Conventional method <\/em> <\/h4>\n<p>The transaction involves three legs.<\/p>\n<p><strong>a) Purchase of share by the beneficiary <\/strong><\/p>\n<p> In this the  beneficiary is sold a fixed number of shares at a nominal rate. The price and  the number of shares to be purchased are decided on the basis of the booking  taken and the value up to which price would be rigged. This leg of the  transaction mostly is offline. This is done to save on STT using the loophole  in Section 10(38) of the IT Act which places restriction of trading by payment  of STT on sale of shares and not on purchase.<\/p>\n<p><strong>b) Price rigging <\/strong><\/p>\n<p> After the shares have  been purchased by the beneficiaries, the syndicate members start rigging the  price gradually through the brokers. In these transactions the volume is almost  negligible. Two fixed brokers, who are in league with the Syndicate, buy shares  at a fixed time and at a fixed price. These low volume transactions are managed  through paper companies of entry operators.<\/p>\n<p><strong>c) Final sale by the beneficiary <\/strong><\/p>\n<p> This is done after the  beneficiary has already held the shares for one year. The period of holding may  be a little more to match the amount of booking with the final rate. The  beneficiary is contacted either by the Syndicate member or the Broker (Middle  man) through whom the initial booking was done. The beneficiary provides the  required amount of cash which is routed through some of the paper companies of  the entry operator and is finally parked in one company which will buy the  shares from the beneficiary. The paper company issues cheque to the  beneficiary.<\/p>\n<p>The above mentioned methodology is referred to as <strong>Conventional  Method<\/strong>. <\/p>\n<p>Another method which also used quite often is called <strong>Merger Method<\/strong>.  The methodology adopted in Merger Method is as under:<\/p>\n<h3><em>3.2.3.2 Merger method:<\/em> <\/h3>\n<p>In this method the operators first form a Private Limited Company and  the shares at par are allotted to beneficiary individuals. This private limited  company is then amalgamated \/ merged with a listed penny stock company by a  High Court order. Depending on the capital of the amalgamating and amalgamated  companies, the investors are allotted stock of the listed companies in the same  proportion. The capital of the Penny stock listed company and the private  limited company are so arranged that the beneficiaries post-merger, get shares  of listed company in the ratio 1:1, thus the investor gets equal number stocks  of the listed company. The promoters of the listed penny stock companies run  the syndicate, the brokers and the entry-operators through whose paper\/shell  company&rsquo;s cash are routed are merely commission agents. The penny stock listed  company is such that though its capital base is small its market capitalisation  is many times its capital base. This is managed again through small volume  predetermined transaction amongst members of the syndicate. The prices of  shares are thus manipulated at 20 to 25 times the face value. For example the  quoted price of such a company would be around ` 250 with minor fluctuations synchronised with  rise and fall in the market to avoid regulatory glare. One such company is  quoted on CSE. The investors hold these shares in the penny stock listed  company which it got as a result of merger for one year (statutory lock-in  period for exemption under IT Act) and then sell it to one of the shell private  limited companies of the operator. The investor thus makes a LTCG of 25 times  its original investment. The purchase consideration is again provided in cash  by the investor which is laundered to the buyers account through a maze of shell  companies as mentioned in the previous method. <\/p>\n<p>Though LTCG is booked while the share price is going up, the downward  journey is used by the operators for booking bogus losses. People who have huge  profit take the Short Term Capital loss (STCL) to set-off their profit. The methodology used  is the same. The beneficiary who wants loss buys the share at a high rate from  the beneficiary who is taking LTCG. The loss taking beneficiary pays cheque to  the LTCG taking beneficiary and the cash provided by the LTCG beneficiary is  returned to the Loss taking beneficiary. The operator deducts his commission  before payment by cash. As prices crash the loss taking beneficiary sells these  shares bought at high value for small value resulting in artificial loss.<\/p>\n<h3>3.3 Results of Kolkata investigations <\/h3>\n<p>In the report department identified the 84 BSE listed penny stocks  which have been used for generating bogus LTCG from individual \/ individuals  targeted. Post that number of search and surveys were conducted in the office  premises of more than 32 Share broking entities, which accepted that they were  actively involved in the bogus LTCS\/STCL Scam. Surveys were also conducted in the office  premises of many accommodation entry providers and their statements recorded.  As per the report all had accepted their role in the scam. The report further  stated that beneficiaries of more than ` 38 thousand crore were identified. <\/p>\n<p>A Total of more than 60 thousand PAN numbers of the beneficiaries were  identified. The report further covered more than 5000 paper\/shell companies,  also known as &ldquo;Jamakharchi&rdquo; companies, which are involved in providing bogus  accommodation of various kinds. Statements for most of the directors of  companies had been recorded under oath. The department also prepared cash trail  of ` 1570 Crore.  The case trail reflected how unaccounted\/undisclosed cash of beneficiaries was  being routed through this modus to convert black money into LTCG. The  investigating team had followed the money trail from the point it is being  deposited to the undisclosed proprietorship bank accounts, to the accounts of  share brokers. Then they recorded statements of share brokers where they have  accepted that cash has been used for providing accommodation entry of bogus  LTCG. <\/p>\n<h3><em>3.3.1 Capital gain side or sale side beneficiaries  (as per the report)<\/em><br \/>\n<\/h3>\n<table border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n        <strong>Dgit<\/strong><strong> Wise <\/strong> <\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>No. of Pan<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Amount (<\/strong>Rs<strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Mumbai <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">17344 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">1223392,20,545<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Kolkata <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">12236 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">671804,06,328<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Delhi <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">6632 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">609972,97,795<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Ahmedabad <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">6962 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">241851,44,408<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Lucknow <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">3996 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">221427,35,005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Chandigarh <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">2519 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">165985,63,664<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Bhopal <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">3118 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">151807,09,899<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Jaipur <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">3471 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">150909,93,477<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Bengaluru <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">1619 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">107038,20,659<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Hyderabad <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">2604 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">105012,00,292<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Chennai <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">1790 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">90944,04,614<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Patna <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">1133 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">42251,14,570<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Pune <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">399 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">514,21,00,307<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"left\">International    Taxation<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">136 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">2757,35,307<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Kochi <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">187 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">2172,38,411<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Total <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"53\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">64811 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">3838746,85,281<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<h3><em>3.3.2 Short term capital loss or purchase side  beneficiaries \/ jamakharchi providers (as per the report) :<\/em><\/h3>\n<table border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Dgit<\/strong><strong> Wise <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>No. of Pan<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Amount<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Kolkata <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">12240 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">2246797,65,038<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Mumbai <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">11854 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">797756,89,393<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Delhi <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">2920 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">311585,30,784<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Ahmedabad <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">4742 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">117224,30,395<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Bhopal <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">1514 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">87343,71,717<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Chandigarh <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">1241 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">59263,52,548<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Jaipur <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">2098 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">57041,28,394<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Lucknow <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">2062 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">56115,31,092<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Bengaluru <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">914 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">24008,04,555<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Chennai <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">899 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">16965,42,285<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Hyderabad <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">1187 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">16060,99,482<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"left\">International    Taxation <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">248 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">11497,68,948<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Patna <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">437 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">4635,75,503<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Pune <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">300 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">7950,47,517<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Kochi <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">216 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">734,28,064<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"132\" valign=\"top\">\n<p>Total <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"52\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"center\">43154 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"102\" valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"right\">3814980,65,714<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>Though this report was  sent to relevant officers, to further boost the process, new button &#8216;Penny  Stocks&#8217; has been added on Individual Transaction Screen (ITS) to display  information related to penny stocks, on the screen of the Assessing Officers  (AOs).(See Letter F.No.287\/30\/2014 IT (Inv.II)- Vol.- III, dated 16-3-2016 issued  by CBDT to the officers). Further such information was continuously updated on  their computers under Actionable Information Monitoring System (Letter F.  No.287\/30\/2015-IT (INV.II)-VOL-III, dated 29-3-2016)<\/p>\n<h2>4. SEBI<\/h2>\n<p>The Government&rsquo;s two-pronged approach &mdash; investigation and regulation &mdash;  involves action against tax evaders and tightening of norms for scrips prone to  price manipulation. The market regulator and the taxman have in the past come  down strongly on penny stocks. With income tax department into action, SEBI, on  the other hand, is drawing up stringent rules for companies prone to price  manipulation and widening the scope of Graded Surveillance Measures. SEBI has  passed various interim order and confirmatory orders against the operators and  its associates upon preliminary enquiry. These orders were passed against:<\/p>\n<p>a) Promoters and promoter  related entities <\/p>\n<p>b) Preferential allotttees<\/p>\n<p>c) Penny stock  sellers\/traders who rig the prices <\/p>\n<p>d) LTP contributers<\/p>\n<p>e) Exit providers. <\/p>\n<p>However, upon completion of the investigation, SEBI did not find any  adverse evidence\/ findings amounting to any violation in respect of many  entities and hence those orders were partially revoked. <\/p>\n<h2>5. SOPs, Assessments and tax effects<\/h2>\n<p>Post the investigations and to observe that the tax evaders are not  left out on procedural and technical grounds, the <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/standard-operating-procedure-sop-to-handle-cases-of-bogus-long-term-capital-gain-loss-mainly-penny-stock\/\">department had prepared Standard operating procedures (SOPs)<\/a> to be adopted by the Assessing officers  while framing assessment orders in penny stock cases. Not only the procedures  standardised, but the specific formats were given for the following: <\/p>\n<p>a) Draft questions for  statement to be recorded u\/s. 131 <\/p>\n<p>b) Draft Show cause notices <\/p>\n<p>c) Draft assessment orders<\/p>\n<p>d) Draft of reasons  recorded u\/s. 148<\/p>\n<p>Further a draft order noting is given in following situations <\/p>\n<p>a) If a request is made for  cross examination<\/p>\n<p>b) If deponent files  affidavit retracting statements, etc. <\/p>\n<p>One may observe that the statements recorded and assessment orders are  similarly worded except the factual aspects of penny stocks traded in.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of above, in  few cases, the Assessing officers have treated LTCG as cash credits u\/s. 68 and  in few cases as unexplained money u\/s. 69A. Addition on account of underling  commissions u\/s. 69C also varies from 0.10% to 0.50% in different assessment  orders. <\/p>\n<h2>Rate of tax : Section  115BBE<\/h2>\n<p>Finance Act 2012, inserted section 115BBE w.e.f. 1-4-2013, which  provides that in case total income of an assessee includes an income chargeable  under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, the income would be chargeable @  30% without there being any benefit of slab rate which would have been  otherwise available to such assessee. This amendment was brought to ensure that  the undisclosed income is chargeable to tax @ 30% and the assessees&rsquo; should not  be able to take advantage of the basic exemption limit or lower slab of the  rate of tax applicable to assessees&rsquo;. <\/p>\n<p>This section was further substituted by the Taxation Laws (Second  Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1-4-2017 wherein rate of tax was increased from 30% to  60%. The amended section further provides that the section would apply  irrespective of fact, whether the income is disclosed by the assessee in its  return of income under sections 68 to 69D or the Assessing Officer makes such  an addition. Its seems that the purpose of the amendment is to put a check on  the assessee depositing money in his bank account pursuant to the  demonetisation from 8th November, 2016. Persons who had declared under IDS  would be taxed @ 45% and post demonetisation those should not get away by  offering the same as income @ 30%. Hence, the rate has been increased to 60%. <\/p>\n<h2>6. Judicial Precedents<\/h2>\n<p>The issue of penny stocks is not recent. In the &ldquo;war to curb black  money&rdquo;, wherein usage of penny stock was at its peak, this issue has gained  momentum and hence would be worthwhile to be appraised about few important  decisions on this issue. <\/p>\n<h3>6.1 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/pr-cit-vs-prem-pal-gandhi-ph-high-court-bogus-capital-gains-from-penny-stocks-the-fact-that-the-appreciation-in-the-value-of-the-shares-is-high-does-not-justify-the-transactions-being-treated-as-fict\/\">Pr. CIT v. Prem Pal Gandhi  in ITA-95-2017 (O&amp;M) dt. 18-1-2018 (Punjab &amp; Haryana HC)<\/a><\/h3>\n<p>The Court in the context of penny stocks held that the appreciation in  the value of the shares is high does not justify the transactions being treated  as fictitious and the capital gains being assessed as undisclosed income if, <\/p>\n<p>(a)  the shares are traded on  the Stock Exchange, <\/p>\n<p>(b)  the payments and  receipts are routed through the bank, <\/p>\n<p>(c)  there is no evidence to  indicate it is a closely held company, and <\/p>\n<p>(d)  the trading on the Stock  Exchange was manipulated in any manner <\/p>\n<h3>6.2 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ito-vs-arvind-kumar-jain-huf-itat-mumbai-bogus-capital-gains-from-penny-stocks-if-the-dmat-account-and-contract-note-show-details-of-the-share-transactions-and-the-ao-has-not-proved-the-transactions\/\">ITO v. Arvind Kumar Jain  HUF ITA No. 4862\/MUM\/2014 dt. 18-9-2017 (Mum.)(ITAT)<\/a> <\/h3>\n<p>Tribunal while dealing with the issue of bogus capital gains from penny  stocks held that if the DEMAT account and contract note show details of the  share transactions and the AO has not proved the transactions to be bogus, the  capital gains earned on the said transactions cannot be treated as unaccounted  income u\/s. 68. The fact that the broker was tainted and violated SEBI  regulations would not make assessee&rsquo;s transactions bogus.<\/p>\n<h3>6.3 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ito-vs-indravadan-jain-huf-itat-mumbai-s-68-long-term-capital-gains-arising-from-transfer-of-penny-stocks-cannot-be-treated-as-bogus-merely-because-sebi-has-initiating-an-inquiry-with-regard-to-the\/\">ITO v. M\/s. Indravadan  Jain (HUF) ITA No. 4861\/Mum.\/2014 dt. 27-5-2016<\/a> <\/h3>\n<p>The Tribunal while  dealing with LTCG on penny stocks has held that Long-term capital gains arising  from transfer of penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus merely because SEBI  has initiated an inquiry with regard to the Company if, payment is by cheque  and delivery of shares is taken.<\/p>\n<h3>6.4 CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar [2015] 229 Taxman  256 (Bombay)<\/h3>\n<p>In this case, assessee declared capital gains on sale of shares of two  companies. Assessing Officer, observing that transaction was done through  brokers at Calcutta and performance of concerned companies was not  such as would justify increase in share prices, held the transaction as bogus  and having been done to convert unaccounted money of assessee to accounted  income and, therefore, made addition under section 68. On appeal, Tribunal  deleted addition observing that DEMAT account and contract note showed  credit\/details of share transactions. The High Court held that the transactions  in shares were rightly held to be genuine and addition made by Assessing Officer  was rightly deleted.<\/p>\n<h3>6.5 CIT v. SmtJamna Dev Agarwal 328 ITR 656 (Bombay)<\/h3>\n<p>It was held that from the documents produced before the Court it was  seen that the shares in question were, in fact, purchased by the assessees on  the respective dates and the company had confirmed to have handed over the  shares purchased by the assessees. Similarly, the sale of the shares of the  respective buyer was also established by producing documentary evidence. It is  true that some of the transactions were off-market transactions. However, the  purchase and sale price of the shares declared by the assessees were in  conformity with the market rates prevailing on the respective dates, as was  seen from the documents furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the fact that  some of the transactions were off-market transactions could not be a ground to  treat the transactions as sham transactions.<\/p>\n<h3>6.6 CIT v. Vivek Mehta 204 Taxmann 177 (Punjab  &amp; Haryana) <\/h3>\n<p>In this case the assessee declared long term capital gain on  sale\/purchase of the shares of &#8216;M&#8217; Ltd. and claimed the same as exempt under  section 54F. The Assessing Officer held that the purchase of shares of &#8216;M&#8217; Ltd.  was bogus and manipulated and, therefore, the subsequent sale was also bogus.  The Assessing Officer further held that the assessee introduced his unaccounted  income under the garb of long-term capital gain and claimed same as exempt  under section 54F. The credit entries in bank account of the assessee  reflecting sale consideration of share were found to be unexplained credits and  added to the income of the assessee under section 68. It was held by the High  Court that on the basis of the documents produced by the assessee in appeal,  the Commissioner (Appeals), recorded a finding of fact that there was a genuine  transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee 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 stock exchange. Such finding of fact has  been recorded on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Tribunal has  affirmed such finding. Such finding of fact is sought to be disputed in the  present appeal. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals)  doesn&#8217;t give rise to any question(s) of law as sought to be raised in the  appeal. <\/p>\n<h3>6.7 CIT v. Mahesh chandra G. Vakil 220 Taxman  166 (Gujarat)(HC) <\/h3>\n<p>It was held by the High Court that where assessee proved genuineness of  share transactions by contract notes for sale and purchase, bank statement of  broker, demat account showing transfer in and out of shares, as also abstract  of transactions furnished by stock exchange, Assessing Officer was not  justified in treating capital gain arising from sale of shares as unexplained  cash credit.<\/p>\n<h3>6.8 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/farrah-marker-vs-ito-itat-mumbai-s-1038-68-long-term-capital-gains-on-sale-of-penny-stocks-cannot-be-treated-as-bogus-unexplained-cash-credit-if-the-documentation-is-in-order-there-is-no\/\">Ms. Farrah Marker v. ITO (Mumbai) ITA No.  3801\/Mum\/2011<\/a><\/h3>\n<p>The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for A.Y.  2005-06 on 4-8-2005 declaring income of ` 1,19,653\/- after claiming the income from long  term capital gain (LTCG) of ` 93,00,012\/- on sale of listed equity shares and  subjected to STT as exempt under section 10(38). In the course of assessment  proceedings, the AO observed that the shares of Shukun Constructions Ltd. are  nothing but penny stocks and that the assessee has backdated the purchase of  the said shares in transactions to generate artificial gain. The AO made an  addition of the sale proceeds on sale of the said shares amounting to Rs 95,12,812\/-  under section 68 of the Act. <\/p>\n<p>Hon&rsquo;ble ITAT held that the documents pertaining to  the purchase and sale of shares of M\/s. Shukun Constructions Ltd. such as  contract notes of brokers, copies of physical share certificates, transfer of  physical shares to the name of the assessee and consolidation by the company,  the DEMAT account statement of the assessee with SHCIL confirming the said  shares in the assessee&rsquo;s name, bank statements and summary thereof and  financial statements of the assessee, viz., Balance Sheet of earlier years  showing that the fact of holding these shares were furnished before the AO from  16-7-2007 onwards, i.e., well before the assessment was concluded on  31-12-2007.<\/p>\n<p> From the details filed by the assessee on record in pursuance of  the query by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings, that the shares of  Shukun Constructions Ltd. is listed on BSE and that the sale transaction of the  &lsquo;said shares&rsquo; by the assessee is at the rate quoted on the date of sale has  been confirmed both by BSE and the concerned stock broker M\/s. Khambatta  Securities Ltd. It is strange that the AO has made the addition under section  68 of the Act treating the entire sale proceeds of the &lsquo;said shares&rsquo; received  by the assessee through regular banking channels from stock broker registered  with SEBI, M\/s. Khambatta Securities Ltd., which facts have been confirmed by  the said stock broker. <\/p>\n<h3>6.9 CIT v. Smt. Sumitra Devi 49 taxmann.com 37  (Rajasthan)<\/h3>\n<p>The High Court observed that the AO had failed to show that the  material documents placed on record by the assessee like broker&#8217;s note,  contract note, relevant extract of cash book, copies of share certificate, demat statement etc. were false,  fabricated or fictitious. The appellate authorities have rightly observed that  the facts as noticed by the AO, like the notice under s, 133(6) to the company  having been returned unserved, delayed payment to the brokers, and dematerialisation  of shares just before the sale would lead to suspicion and call for detailed  examination and verification but then, for these facts alone, the transaction  could not be rejected altogether, particularly in absence of any cogent  evidence to the contrary.<\/p>\n<h3>6.10 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/arvind-asmal-mehta-vs-ito-itat-mumbai-bogus-purchase-and-sale-of-shares-law-explained-as-to-on-whom-the-onus-is-to-show-that-the-purchase-and-sale-of-shares-are-bogus-and-the-circumstances-require\/\">Arvind Mehta v. ITO<\/a> ITA No. 2799\/Mum\/2015  pronounced on 29-2-2016 <\/h3>\n<p>The assessee had declared a long term capital gain of Rs 7,01,773\/-  on the sale of said shares of M\/s. Essar Oil Ltd. The Assessing Officer noted  that certain information was received from the Investigation Wing as a  consequence of a search and seizure action carried out under section 132 of the  Act in the case of M\/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. on 25-11-2009. As per such information received, it was noted  that there was some companies which were under the control of one Shri  MukeshChokshi which, <em>inter-alia,<\/em> included M\/s. Alliance Intermediaries  &amp; Network Pvt. Ltd., broking concern from whom assessee had claimed the  purchase of shares of M\/s. Essar Oil Limited. <\/p>\n<p>As a consequence, the entire sale consideration of ` 8,80,332\/-  was added to the returned income as &lsquo;income from undisclosed sources&rsquo;. Hon&rsquo;ble  ITAT held that the DEMAT account which evidences the sale of shares does  justify an inference that the assessee was indeed in possession of the shares  of M\/s. Essar Oil Ltd. prior to its sale. There is no material on record to  suggest that the sale consideration received by the assessee in question i.e. Rs 8,80,332\/-  is on account of any transaction other than the sale of shares of M\/s. Essar  Oil Ltd. Therefore, under these circumstances the onus was entirely on the  Assessing Officer to establish that the purchase and sale of the shares of M\/s.  Essar Oil Ltd. was bogus.<\/p>\n<p>If the orders of the authorities below are examined in this context, it  is clear that there is no clinching material to say that the impugned  transaction was bogus. Though a reference has been made to the investigation in  the case of Shri MukeshChokshi, but no effort has been made by the Assessing  Officer to demonstrate that <em>qua<\/em> the instant transaction of the assessee,  any infirmity has been confessed by Shri MukeshChokshi. Be that as it may,  assessee has been consistently canvassing before the lower authorities that the  statement of Shri MukeshChokshi be confronted to him. There is nothing on  record to suggest that any specific statement Shri MukeshChokshi has been  confronted to the assessee. Considering the entirety of circumstances and the  material on record, there is no justification for the Assessing Officer to hold  that that the sale consideration received on the sale of shares of M\/s. Essar  Oil Ltd. of Rs 8,80,332\/- is unexplained or from undisclosed sources.<\/p>\n<h3>6.11 Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Himani M.  Vakil [2013]10 taxmann.com 326 (Guj.) <\/h3>\n<p>The Court held that where  assessee duly proved genuineness of share transactions by bringing on record  contract notes for sale and purchase, bank statement of broker and demat  account showing transfer in and out of shares, Assessing Officer was not  justified in bringing to tax capital gain arising from sale of shares as  unexplained cash credit.<\/p>\n<h3>6.12 ITO v. Aarti Mittal 41 taxmann.com 118 (Hyderabad &#8211; Trib.)<\/h3>\n<p>The Tribunal held that the prescribed procedure was followed from the  stage of purchase till the shares are dematted, and thus there is hardly any  room to doubt or suspect that the transactions in purchase are not genuine. No  such cogent evidence having been brought on record, and the Assessing Officer  merely proceeded to arrive at his conclusion basing on mere surmise and suspicion  that the purchase transactions are bogus. Even though enquiry with Calcutta  Stock Exchange (CSE) revealed that no purchase had taken place, since  transactions were in physical form and done through off market, question of the  same being routed through floor of a recognized stock exchange did not arise. <\/p>\n<p>The most crucial aspect which could be considered as incriminating in  such transactions may relate to a case where compensatory payments are made by  the seller to the buyer. No evidence has been brought on record that the  assessee have made any such compensatory payment to the buyer of the stocks. In  the absence of any such observation, the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in  holding the view that the sale transactions cannot be doubted on suspicion. <\/p>\n<p>Moreover, these are the cases in which the transactions have taken  place through the floor of the stock exchange and Securities Transactions Tax  have been paid. In view of these evidences which have not been rebutted by the  Assessing Officer, it is difficult to hold that the sale transactions are  non-genuine and the proceeds thereof are liable to be taxed under the head  &#8216;other sources&#8217;. Further on the basis of the report received from the SEBI,  upon enquiries got conducted that some of the brokers named have been suspended  for some act of omission and commission, the Assessing Officer held that the  transactions entered through these brokers are not genuine. But merely based on  such a report, such transactions cannot be treated as sham merely for some discrepancies  or adverse report by the SEBI. <\/p>\n<p>The Assessing Officer has not brought out any material to establish the  final outcome of the enquiry initiated by the SEBI and specific shares  purchased by the assessee in course of making investment. Therefore, it is not  possible to take any adverse view on the basis of mere suspicion that the SEBI  had initiated some action and found the brokers violating the rules of the  SEBI. It is all the more so, since the assessee has paid STT. Even the absence  of experience of the assessees in transaction of the shares except dealing in  these penny stocks, does not clinch the issue against the assessee. <\/p>\n<p>This may at the most lead to a suspicion but the same cannot be treated  as conclusive to draw any adverse inference against the assessees to the effect  that the transactions are not genuine. Similarly, even the opening of DEMAT  accounts at Calcutta, a remote place may give rise to a suspicion,  but the same cannot lead to any adverse inference against the assessee. Even  with regard to the enquiry got conducted by the Assessing Officer through the  Deputy Commissioner, Calcutta, which revealed that most of the brokers and the  companies were not traceable, the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in  concluding that mere failure to trace the brokers and companies cannot be held  as fatal to the transaction of both purchase and sale, when the details of  which have been duly explained by the assessee. <\/p>\n<p>The assessee has duly discharged the onus that lies on it in  establishing the genuineness of the transactions, and that being so, it is for  the revenue to disprove the claim of the assessee, by bringing on record the  evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal thus deleted the additions made. <\/p>\n<h3>6.13 DCIT v. Anil Kaniya ITA No.  4077\/Mum\/2013 (Mumbai)<\/h3>\n<p>The assessee produced  the copies of contract note, money was received through banking channel from  sale of shares, and purchases of earlier years were not doubted. Dematting was  done by the assessee, sale was affected, thus, addition made u\/s. 68 of the Act  cannot be sustained and also the resultant disallowance of commission at the  rate of 5% made by the Assessing Officer. <\/p>\n<p>Even otherwise, for  making addition u\/s. 68 of the Act, there has to be credit of amounts in the  books of the assessee and if the assessee offers no explanation about the  nature and source of such credits, then, the sum so credited may be charged to  tax as income of the assessee. However, in the present case, the assessee has  offered its explanation and if the learned Assessing Officer is still not  satisfied with such explanation, onus shifts upon him to prove otherwise. <\/p>\n<p>The assessee&rsquo;s burden  is confined to prove creditworthiness of the creditor with reference to the  transaction found in the books of the assessee. No adverse material was brought  on record by the Assessing Officer to substantiate his presumption, and thus  addition cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n<h3>6.14 Sudhanshu Suresh Pandhare v. ITO I.T.A. No.  5185\/Mum\/2012 (Mumbai)<\/h3>\n<p>The Tribunal held that  the assessing officer has disbelieved the claim of Long term capital gain only  on the basis of the statement given by the broker. However, the assessee had  furnished the details of purchase of shares, copies of share certificates, the  details of sale of shares and the details of receipt of money towards the sale  consideration. Sale of shares had taken place through Ahmedabad  Stock Exchange. <\/p>\n<p>The Tribunal further  observed that the documents and the claim of the assessee were not examined by  the AO. Assessee filed return of income showing the purchases in the year  relevant to AY 2003-04 and the sales in the return of income relating to AY  2004-05. Further, assessee sought for the copy of statement claimed to have  been given by Shri Mukesh Choksi with regard to the transactions carried on by  his group of companies, which was not provided to the assessee. Since the  assessing officer had not shown that the transactions of the assessee have been  claimed to be accommodation entries by Shri Mukesh Choksi, he could not have  taken adverse view of the matter on the basis of generalized statement. <\/p>\n<p>The statement of Shri  Mukesh Choksi has been relied upon without confronting the same with the  assessee. Thus there was no justification in disbelieving the claim of the  assessee.<\/p>\n<h3>6.15 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/surya-prakash-toshniwal-huf-vs-ito-itat-kolkata-bogus-capital-gains-from-penny-stocks-long-term-capital-gains-claimed-exempt-us-1038-cannot-be-treated-as-bogus-unexplained-income-if-the-paper-work\/\">Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF v. ITO ITA No.1213\/Kol\/2016 (Kol. ITAT)<\/a> <\/h3>\n<p>The Tribunal observed  that in spite of having all information the lower authorities held the long  term capital gains as bogus and from undisclosed sources on the basis of  certain facts as under :<\/p>\n<p>A) The assessee was a HUF and the transaction was routed for both purchase  and sale of the shares through an individual broker who happened to be the  Karta of assessee i.e. HUF.<\/p>\n<p>B) The shares were sold to M\/s. Ahilaya  Commercial Private Limited (for short ACPL) but the financial statements of the  company were not filed to the stock exchange. The assessee also failed to  furnish the necessary details of ACPL to establish the genuineness of the  transactions except that the transactions were routed through account payee  cheques.<\/p>\n<p>C) The SEBI has also directed M\/s ACPL not  to carry out any transaction of purchase and sale of securities in any manner  either directly or indirectly.<\/p>\n<p>D) The assessee has also failed to submit  the net worth of M\/s RFL and ACPL to justify the amount of capital gain earned  during the year. <\/p>\n<p>The Tribunal held that  the lower authorities have not brought on record any concrete evidence for  disallowing the long term capital gain of the assessee. The AO should have  issued notices and summons to M\/s. RFL and ACPL under sections 133(6) and 131  of the Act for the production of the necessary financial information before  rejecting the claim of the assessee. <\/p>\n<p>All the necessary  information which were available with the assessee had been brought on record  by the assessee before the lower authorities. In case ACPL had not filed the  financial statements with the stock exchange then the assessee for the fault of  ACPL cannot be held guilty under the income tax proceedings. <\/p>\n<p>The Tribunal held that  assessee had made the transactions for the sale and purchase of the shares  through a valid stock broker who was in existence at the relevant time with the  stock exchange and this fact has not been doubted by the lower authorities.<\/p>\n<h2>AGAINST DECISIONS<\/h2>\n<h3>6.16 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ito-vs-shamim-m-bharwani-itat-mumbai-s-68-despite-documentary-evidence-and-brokers-confirmation-genuineness-of-penny-stock-transactions-has-to-be-determined-on-the-basis-of-prepon\/\">ITO v. Shamim M. Bharwani [2016] 69  taxmann.com 65 (Mumbai &#8211; Trib.)<\/a><\/h3>\n<p>The Tribunal was posed  with a question that whether the documents furnished by the assessee, including  averments made by him, or even his broker, satisfy the test of preponderance of  human probabilities. It observed that if the assessee has reasonably explained  the &lsquo;intriguing&rsquo; facts and circumstances as pointed by the AO, and on the  strength of which the genuineness is assailed by him, and with the fact that it  is a case of penny stock company, then no case for treating the transaction as  not genuine shall ever arise. The Tribunal held that onus u\/s. 68 though is on  the assessee, so that his explanation is substantiated or proved. <\/p>\n<p>Firstly, documentary  evidences, in the face of unusual events, and without any corroborative or  circumstantial evidence\/s, cannot be regarded as conclusive. Two, the  preponderance of probabilities only denotes the simultaneous existence of  several &lsquo;facts&rsquo;, each probable in itself, albeit low, so as to cast a serious  doubt on the truth of the reported &lsquo;facts&rsquo;, which together make up for a  bizarre statement, leading to the inference of collusiveness or a device set up  to conceal the truth, i.e., in the absence of credible and independent  evidences. <\/p>\n<p>For a scrip to trade  at nearly 50 times its&rsquo; face value, only a few months after its issue, only  implies, if not price manipulation, trail blazing performance and\/or great  business prospects (with of course proven management record, so as to be able  to translate that into reality), while even as much as the company&rsquo;s business  or industry or future programme (all of which would be in public domain), is  conspicuous by its absence, i.e., even years after the transaction\/s. The  company is, by all counts, a paper company, and its share transactions,  managed. The Tribunal thus confirmed the assessment of the impugned sum u\/s. 68  of the Act. <\/p>\n<h3>6.17 <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/sanjay-bimalchand-jain-vs-pr-cit-bombay-high-court-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\/\">Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. Pr. CIT [2018] 89  taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (HC)<\/a><\/h3>\n<p>The High observed that  the authorities found that the assessee had made investment in two unknown  companies of which the details were not known to her. It was held that the  transaction of sale and purchase of shares of two penny stock companies, the  merger of the two companies with another company, viz. Khoobsurat Limited did  not qualify an investment and rather it was an adventure in the nature of  trade. It was held by all the authorities that the motive of the investment  made by the assessee was not to derive income but to earn profit. Both the  brokers, i.e., the broker through whom the assessee purchased the shares and  the broker through whom the shares were sold, were located at Kolkata and the  assessee did not have an inkling as to what was going on in the whole  transaction except paying a sum of Rs 65,000\/- in cash for the purchase of shares of  the two penny stock companies. <\/p>\n<p>The authorities found  that though the shares were purchased by the assessee at Rs 5.50 per  share and Rs 4\/- per share from the two companies in the year 2003, the assessee was  able to sell the shares just within a years time at Rs 486.55 and  Rs 485.65 per  share. The broker through whom the shares were sold by the assessee did not  respond to the assessing officer&rsquo;s letter seeking the names, addresses and the  bank accounts of the persons that had purchased the shares sold by the  assessee. <\/p>\n<p>The authorities have  recorded a clear finding of fact that the assessee had indulged in a dubious  share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of  long term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the  assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an  unknown company worth Rs 5\/- had jumped to Rs  485\/- in no time. The Income Tax  Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible  as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs 5\/- of a  little known company would jump from Rs 5\/- to Rs 485\/-. The findings recorded by the authorities  are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on  record. The High Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal decision. <\/p>\n<h2>7. Penalties and prosecutions <\/h2>\n<h3>7.1 Penalties <\/h3>\n<p>As per sections  271(1)(c) penalty would be leviable in case of concealment of income or  furnishing of inaccurate particulars. These may apply on penny stock  assessments. The penalty levied may range from 100% to 300%. However, the  Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 has inserted section 271AAC w.e.f. 1-4-2017 which provides for a penalty of 10% of the tax  payable under section 115BBE, in case an addition has been made by the Assessing  Officer. <\/p>\n<p>However, no penalty  would be leviable if assessee<em>suomotu<\/em> makes an addition in the return of  income. One may observe that the tax rate as per section 115BBE is 60% and  penalty over such income is 10% which makes the effective rate of tax for  additions made under sections 60 to 69D at 66% plus surcharge plus education  cess. <\/p>\n<p>In case such additions  have been made pursuant to a search action u\/s. 132, then, the penalty is  leviable under section 271AAB. The sections provides for lower rate of penalty  on fulfilment of certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the assessee  &ldquo;substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived;&rdquo; This  aspect is subjective in nature and hence litigation prone. Questions like  whether an assessee should substantiate during the search action, or during the  assessment proceedings, wait till the officer asks relevant questions, would  arise. <\/p>\n<h3>7.2 Prosecution<\/h3>\n<p>The department has  issued many show cause notices for initiation of prosecution proceedings u\/s.  276C(1)&amp; 277 r.w.s 278E. Sub-section 1 of Section 276C deals with wilful  attempt to evade any tax, penalty or interest; whereas sub-section 2 deals with  wilful attempt to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest levied  under Income Tax Act. Section 277 deals with false statements. <\/p>\n<p>The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is much more  than required in penalty proceedings. The fundamental principle of penal  liability is that an act alone does not amount to a crime, it must be accompanied  by a guilty mind, as laid down by the maxim, &lsquo;Actus Non FacitReum Nisi Mens Sit  Rea&rsquo;, there must be a guilty mind behind an act for the completion of a crime.  Thus if a person is punished under criminal law, it is generally agreed that he  must have done such act with a guilty mind. <\/p>\n<p>The word &lsquo;wilful&rsquo; used in section 276C of the Act generally means an  act done with a bad purpose, with an evil motive as a constituent element of  the offence and it should be established beyond reasonable doubt and there should  be presence of <em>mens rea<\/em> \/ bad motive and a guilty mind. Thus, mens rea,  (culpable mental state) is an important ingredient of the offences under the  act also. <\/p>\n<p>  The word &lsquo;wilful&rsquo; imports the concept of <em>&lsquo;mens rea&rsquo;. <\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986  inserted with effect from 10th September, 1986 section 278E of the Act,  according to which, in any prosecution for any offence under this Act which  requires culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Court shall presume  the existence of such mental state. Section 278E also provides that it shall be  for the defence of the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental  state with respect to the act charged as an offence. Here, however, it is  important to note that the legal presumption contained in section 278E is  limited to the existence of <em>mens rea<\/em> alone and it does not absolve the  prosecution of its responsibility to prove the facts which <em>prima facie<\/em> establish the charge before cognisance of an offence is taken. <\/p>\n<p>A <em>prima facie<\/em> case for prosecution should be made out against  the accused by the Department. A suspicion however, strong against the accused,  but, if there is a reasonable possibility of innocence the accused would be  entitled to acquittal. <\/p>\n<p>However before  accusing the Assessee, an opportunity of cross-examination of the third party  whose statements are relied upon needs to be given to the assessee along-with  full copy of the statement. The Hon&rsquo;ble Supreme Court in <em>Andaman Timber  Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (Bom)(HC)<\/em> has held that failure to  give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are  relied upon results in breach of principles of natural justice. It is a serious  flaw which renders the order a nullity. Also see <em>KishinchandChellaram v. CIT  [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC).<\/em><\/p>\n<h2>8. Issues that need to be addressed <\/h2>\n<p>Whoever desires any Court to give judgement as to any legal right or  liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, must prove  that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any  fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. However,  shifting of onus is the process of transferring the obligation to affirmatively  prove a fact in controversy or an issue brought during a lawsuit from one party  in a legal controversy to the other party. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the cases and even in the draft assessment orders circulated  by the department it has treated sale considerations of such penny stocks as  cash credits under section 68. The Assessee may be able to discharge their onus  by providing evidences link contract details, share certificates, demat accounts, trade details on Stock  exchanges, banking transactions, etc. <\/p>\n<p>The issue for consideration is whether the assessee is required to  prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness in spite of the fact that the  transaction of sale of shares was made on platform of a recognized stock  exchange and was subject to STT. Assuming that the assessee discharges his\/her  onus, the burden then shifts on the Department. The question then arises that only  on the basis of statements recorded and the theory of preponderance of  probability, can additions be made in the hands of the assessee. <\/p>\n<p>Considering the fact  that there are diverse judgments, and the quantum as envisaged by the  department, it is necessary that Supreme  Court intervenes. Few important questions are as under:<\/p>\n<p>a. Whether basic principles of cash credit  u\/s. 68 i.e., identity, creditworthiness, genuineness apply for share  transactions under taken at recognized stock exchange?<\/p>\n<p>b. Where share transaction be treated as  bogus, where SEBI has revoked its interim order qua few beneficiaries, despite  the fact that SEBI has still found few operators and beneficiaries guilty?<\/p>\n<p>c. Whether the transactions have to be  looked at holistically including all beneficiaries, operators, etc. or it is  necessary to conduct inquiries individually and prove the cash trails for each  and every case. <\/p>\n<p>d. Who is supposed to discharge the onus to  establish that there is bogus LTCG and whether such onus needs to be discharged  for all assessments separately?<\/p>\n<h2>9. Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>The allegations made  by the department in its report that penny stock are being used as a tool for  conversion of black money. However, in some cases, it may just be theory, which  further needs to be corroborated with sufficient evidence and statistics. Any  way sufficient amendments have been brought in to put this menance at rest, and  hence use of penny stocks to evade taxes may decline drastically. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal3\"> [Source: Paper presented in souvenir of  National Tax Conference held at Baroda on 7th to 18th March, 2018] <\/div>\n<div class=\"journal2\"> Reproduced with permission from the AIFTP Journal <\/div>\n<div class=\"journal2\">Also read: <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/standard-operating-procedure-sop-to-handle-cases-of-bogus-long-term-capital-gain-loss-mainly-penny-stock\/\">Standard operating procedure (sop) to handle cases of bogus long term capital gain\/loss mainly penny stock<\/a><\/div>\n<table width=\"103%\" border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" bgcolor=\"#FFFFCC\">\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Disclaimer: <\/strong>The  contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not  constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has  been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions  herein is not ruled out. Neither the author nor itatonline.org and its  affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising  out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any  actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be  distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without  express written permission of itatonline.org<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Advocate Paras S. Savla has explained the modus operandi used by unscrupulous taxpayers to launder their unaccounted black money with the aid of bogus capital gains from Penny Stocks. He has also explained the relevant statutory provisions and discussed all the important judgements on the point. He has, however, cautioned that all cases of capital gains from penny stocks cannot be branded by the authorities as bogus and offered advice on what precautions taxpayers should take to avoid being wrongly assessed to tax<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/penny-stocks-modus-operandi-for-generating-bogus-capital-gains-law-practice\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[45,44],"class_list":["post-5240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","tag-bogus-long-term-capital-gains","tag-penny-stocks"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}