Penny stock additions require confrontation of adverse material before exemption denial or final tax adjustment can stand.

In a penny stock dispute, the text notes that additions based on alleged bogus share transactions and denial of exemption under section 10(38) could not be sustained without proper verification of the assessment record. It emphasises that the assessee must be confronted with all adverse material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, including replies to notices under section 133(6) and SEBI material, before an addition is maintained. Because the factual record was incomplete and confrontation was not properly established, the matter was restored for de novo adjudication with disclosure of the relied-upon material and an opportunity to .

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of additions made on account of alleged penny stock transactions and the grant of exemption under section 10(38) could be sustained on the material available; (ii) Whether the matter required restoration for fresh adjudication after confronting the assessee with all adverse material.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of additions made on account of alleged penny stock transactions and the grant of exemption under section 10(38) could be sustained on the material available.

Analysis: The addition arose from the alleged sale of shares in a penny stock company, with the Assessing Officer treating the sale consideration as unexplained cash credit and the related commission as unexplained expenditure. The appellate relief had been granted on the basis of documentary evidence, lack of direct adverse material and non-confrontation of certain enquiry results. However, the record showed that the assessee had purchased the shares through an off-market preferential allotment, while the appellate findings relied on precedents dealing with different factual situations. The finding that the assessee had not been confronted with the replies, if any, to notices under section 133(6) and with the SEBI material was recorded without adequate verification of the assessment record.

Conclusion: The deletion of additions and allowance of exemption could not be sustained as such.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required restoration for fresh adjudication after confronting the assessee with all adverse material.

Analysis: The assessee was entitled to be confronted with all material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, including the replies received in response to notices under section 133(6) and the SEBI report or order. Since the relevant material was not available on record before the Tribunal and the factual verification was incomplete, the proper course was to set aside the additions and direct fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer after supplying the relied-upon material to the assessee and affording an opportunity of response.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due confrontation of the material.

Final Conclusion: The appeal resulted in only partial success for the Revenue, with the substantive tax issue sent back for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where adverse material is relied upon in a penny stock dispute, the assessee must be confronted with that material before a final addition is sustained, and incomplete factual verification warrants remand for de novo adjudication.

---