LTCG exemption denied on penny stocks with unreasonable price rises treated as unexplained cash under section 68

The ITAT Mumbai denied exemption u/s 10(38) for claimed LTCG on penny stocks. The tribunal held that when shares show unreasonable price rises over short periods, the assessee must prove the genuineness of such increases under section 68. The onus remains on the assessee to establish creditworthiness of companies, genuineness of price rise, and transaction authenticity. Mere production of bank details, purchase/sale documents, and D-Mat account records is insufficient. The tribunal found the LTCG transactions were a colourable device to convert unaccounted income into fictitious capital gains. The AO was justified in treating bogus LTCG as unexplained cash u/s 68.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(38) for Long-Term Capital Gain.
2. Addition of unexplained acquisition of bullion and diamond under section 68.
3. Addition of unexplained investment in electronics under section 68.

Summary:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Exemption Claimed under Section 10(38) for Long-Term Capital Gain
The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act for Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this exemption, treating the LTCG as bogus and added it under section 68, citing the suspicious nature of the transactions. The AO relied on investigations by the Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which revealed that the transactions involved penny stocks and were manipulated to generate tax-exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the entire scheme was a colorable device to plough back unaccounted income.

Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Acquisition of Bullion and Diamond under Section 68
The AO added Rs. 14,72,630/- under section 68 for the unexplained acquisition of 400 grams of bullion and diamonds. The Tribunal found that the documents provided by the assessee were ante-dated and involved third-party tax invoices, which required re-examination. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional AO for further verification and re-examination to ensure sustainable and cogent reasons are on record.

Issue 3: Addition of Unexplained Investment in Electronics under Section 68
The AO added Rs. 1,90,900/- under section 68 for unexplained investments in electronics, including a refrigerator, washing machine, Sony battery, and laptop. Similar to the previous issue, the Tribunal found the documents provided by the assessee to be ante-dated and involving third-party tax invoices. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional AO for re-examination and verification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) for LTCG and upheld the AO's decision. However, the issues concerning the addition of unexplained acquisition of bullion and diamonds, and unexplained investment in electronics were restored to the jurisdictional AO for re-examination and verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---