Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Blank Photocopy of Share Transfer Form cannot be admissible as a Piece of Evidence

Must Read

Andhra Pradesh High Court: CRP Disposed; Parties Need to be Present Either Physically or Virtually

  The Single-Judge Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Smt. Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi decided the case...

Bombay HC Pursues a Case Regarding Payment of Interest on Delayed Payment of Taxes: Says the Interest to Be Levied on the Net Cash...

  KLT Automotive and Tubular Products Limited filed a writ petition with the primary contention that interest is levied only...

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Registration of Fir Does Not Construe Any Final Opinion About the Case

Hitesh Bhardwaj (Petitioner) has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The...

Allahabad High Court Directs University to Take Concerned Measures

The High Court of Judicature, Allahabad had decided the case Satya Prakash Tiwari & Others v. State Of U.P....

U.S. District Court Sentences NXIVM Founder Keith Raniere to 120 Years in Prison Over Sex Trafficking and Racketeering Charges

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York convicts NXIVM (pronounced “nexium”) founder, Keith Raniere, to...

Tripura High Court Provides Interim Relief to Prevent the Frustration of Object in a Writ Petition Alleging Error in NEET Scores

  In W.P(C) 720 of 2020, Hon’ble Justice S.G Chattopadhayay dealt with an interim relief prayed under a writ for...

Follow us

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Blank Photocopy of Share Transfer Form cannot be admissible as a Piece of EvidenceThe Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has refused to admit the blank photocopy of shares transfer form as a piece of evidence u/s 16 of Indian Evidence Act.

Parties: Agson Global Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Facts of the Case

The case is related to bogus shares capital and bogus purchase by Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In order to suppress its taxable income. The order of search operation was carried out by the Income-tax Department on 21/03/17 for AY. 2012-13 which was notified u/s 153 A. According to the department, the assessee has issued different premium to different assesse on different dates. The Assesment Officer asked to provide their identities as well as the creditworthiness of these companies. According to the A.O, the companies to whom the premium was given were not much operative rather it was a road map to suppress the taxable income by the assessee. The A.O during its search found that heavy premium was issued to the assessee was a bogus way to hide out taxable income. The assessee has returned this premium in the form of share capital as an investment back to the company against which the A.O has seized certain copies of shares transfer as well as blank photocopies of share transfer. The A.O also added that the transaction that was done by the assessee were noted in books but during the search, no such books were found.

Arguments against the allegation of Blank Share Transfer Form

There were many grounds that were presented by the assessee on which he made the appeal to the court

  1. Firstly he said that there were no incriminating documents were found during the search to uphold the assessment made u/s 153 A of the Act.
  2. The A.O has invoked Article 153 A by assessing unabated assessment year.
  3. The Share premium and share capital has already been examined by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act dated on 24/3/15 where a sum of INR18.50 was added to the income of assessee which was later on stuck down by CIT on which no further appeal was made and hence it concludes the finality of the order.
  4. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of A.O of adding the share capital (48,19,87000) which was assumed as unrevealed cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee against which the A.O didn’t found a single piece of incriminating document. During the search.
  5. The CIT(A) erred in involving section 145(3) of the Act without complying with the mandatory requirements of the law like issuing notice and giving an opportunity of being heard.
  6. With respect to the contention of learned A.O the assessee responded that mere photocopies of blank share transfer and share capital issued cannot be assumed incriminating documents as they were only photocopies and not the original documents.

Court says Blank Share Transfer Form cannot be admissible      

The Court was of the opinion that after giving much of evidence the A.O failed to scrutinize the documents and had made an investigation regarding the flow of the funds. Mere suspects on the transaction between the investor and the company cannot amount to any bogus transaction among them. The Court also said that the documents that were seized by the A.O during the search were just photocopies which were not containing any important information like date of transfer of shares or any issued date hence they cannot be used piece of evidence under section 16 of Indian Evidence Act. The honourable court also added there were traces found of any cash transaction between the parties.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Agson-Global-Bogus-Share-Capital.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Team of Courtroom and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Andhra Pradesh High Court: CRP Disposed; Parties Need to be Present Either Physically or Virtually

  The Single-Judge Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Smt. Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi decided the case of Andhavarapu Swetha @ Tankala...

Bombay HC Pursues a Case Regarding Payment of Interest on Delayed Payment of Taxes: Says the Interest to Be Levied on the Net Cash...

  KLT Automotive and Tubular Products Limited filed a writ petition with the primary contention that interest is levied only on the net tax liability...

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Registration of Fir Does Not Construe Any Final Opinion About the Case

Hitesh Bhardwaj (Petitioner) has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petition seeks appropriate directions to...

Allahabad High Court Directs University to Take Concerned Measures

The High Court of Judicature, Allahabad had decided the case Satya Prakash Tiwari & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko...

U.S. District Court Sentences NXIVM Founder Keith Raniere to 120 Years in Prison Over Sex Trafficking and Racketeering Charges

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York convicts NXIVM (pronounced “nexium”) founder, Keith Raniere, to 120 years in prison over...

Tripura High Court Provides Interim Relief to Prevent the Frustration of Object in a Writ Petition Alleging Error in NEET Scores

  In W.P(C) 720 of 2020, Hon’ble Justice S.G Chattopadhayay dealt with an interim relief prayed under a writ for correction of marks obtained in...

NGT Pulls up PMC, Asks to Shift Waste Processing Plant at Baner

  Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 27th October 2020, directed Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to close the plant and shift it to...

Plea Seeking Dream 11 to Be Declared as Betting Platform Dismissed by Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC dismissed a plea that alleged Dream 11 to be a betting platform, on the assertion that the game depends on skill &...

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -