Section 68 addition for alleged bogus scrip trading fails without documentary evidence linking the assessee to the transaction.

Addition under section 68 for alleged bogus trading and related long-term capital gain could not stand where the assessee denied the transaction, produced supporting material, and the Assessing Officer failed to verify the specific trade details or link the assessee to the alleged dealings. The record did not contain cogent documentary evidence connecting the assessee with the scrip, and the addition could not be sustained on assumptions or surmises. The addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 68 on the allegation of bogus trading in the cited scrip and consequent long term capital gain was sustainable in the absence of documentary evidence linking the assessee to the transaction.

Analysis: The assessee consistently denied having dealt in the scrip and produced supporting material. The record showed that the Assessing Officer did not verify the specific transaction details sought by the assessee and did not supply any material connecting the assessee with the alleged dealings. In these circumstances, the addition could not rest on assumptions or surmises and required cogent documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---