TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instant case, the assessee being an individual deriving income from salary, house property, capital gain and other sources had declared her total income at Rs. 4,63,750/- by filing her Return of Income on dated 1.9.2015 for the assessment year under consideration. Subsequently, case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act, with the reason that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries, who has made sale of shares, wherein trading quantity is higher than 'Buy Trades Quantity' of the scrip M/s. Toyam Industries Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 1,99,12,777/- and accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the assessee. In response to which, the Assessee filed relevant details and the documents, such as purchase documents, sale contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that she has duly provided all relevant documents in order to discharge her prima facie onus cast under section 68 of the Act and the Revenue-Department/any of the authorities below have not doubted the documents, submitted by the assessee and therefore the claim of the Assessee is liable to be allowed. 8. On the contrary, Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee by submitting that the burden is upon the assessee to discharge as per provision of section 68 of the Act. In the instant case, by considering suspicious trading pattern, the Assessee's involvement, the sudden spikes in trading volume followed by sharp price declining, the assessee's failure to discharge onus cast under section 68 of the Act and judicial precedents specifically ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee sold the shares during period 29.10.2014 to 13.1.2015, the gross sales of scrip do not commensurate with the share price year-wise and the shares attained its peak value in 2014 at Rs. 600/- while gross sales remain zero in that year. Further the price remains, as low as Rs. 2 in the year, when the company was bit of operational and the share price does not commensurate with the peak value of the scrip. 10. Admittedly the assessee purchased and sold said scrip through banking channel and retained the shares under consideration for more than one year in her account and sold subsequently through on-line stock exchange platform and consequently also paid STT. Further the assessee in order to discharge its onus cast u/s 68 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same scrip as involved in this case, has also been dealt with by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meena Hasmukh Savla Vs. ITO- 27(2)(1) (60) ITA No. 2910/Mum/2024 decided on 18.2.2025, who ultimately deleted the same on the basis of identical facts and circumstances as involved in this case and thus on this count also, the addition of liable to be deleted. 12. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indravadan Jain, HUF [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay)/[2024] 463 ITR 711 (Bombay)[12-07- 2023], has also dealt with identical issue and has held as under:- "1. This appeal is impugning an order dated 27th May 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase was reopened under section 148 of the Act. 4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain and added the same in respondent's income under section 68 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that the A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry in the case of the said broker and in the scrip of RFL through whom respondent had made the said transaction and it was conclusively proved that it was the said broker who had inflated the price of the said scrip in RFL. The CIT[A] also did not find anything wrong in respondent doing only one transaction with the said broker in....