Long Term Capital Gains accepted where demat, banking and trading records negate linkage to manipulation or accommodation entries.

The note addresses whether claimed long term capital gains exempt under Section 10(38) from share sales were genuine or sham accommodation entries warranting additions under Sections 69A and 69C. It explains that Revenue must produce cogent material linking the taxpayer to price manipulation, entry operators or exit providers; mere suspicion or steep gains are insufficient. Where transactions are executed through demat accounts, banking channels and screen trading with supporting contract notes and records, the taxpayer may discharge the onus and the gains should be accepted absent specific evidence of collusion or manipulation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the long term capital gains claimed as exempt under section 10(38) arising from sale of shares of HPC Biosciences Ltd. were genuine or were bogus accommodation entries so as to justify additions under Sections 69A and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) including SEBI and Directorate of Investigation material, contract notes, bank and demat records, the application of the test of human probabilities and numerous judicial precedents on penny-stock transactions and accommodation entries. The Tribunal analysed whether the Revenue had produced material linking the assessee specifically to price manipulation, entry operators or exit providers and whether the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him in respect of the claimed LTCG. The Tribunal also considered coordinate-bench decisions and High Court rulings which emphasise that reliance on investigation reports must be supported by cogent material connecting the taxpayer to the fraudulent scheme, and that where transactions are through banking channels, demat accounts and screen trading with supporting documents, mere suspicion or steep gains alone do not justify treating LTCG as unexplained income.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that on the facts and evidence in the present case the Revenue did not bring sufficient material to link the assessee to manipulative or entry-provider activities and that the assessee had established the transactions through demat and banking channels; accordingly the additions under Sections 69A and 69C were not sustainable and the exemption under Section 10(38) is to be accepted.

---