TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 17/12/2025 bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1083790642[1] by the CIT[A], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is arbitrary, against natural justice, unlawful, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 14,43,569/- on account Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt under section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the appellant, even though the assessee has furnished all the relevant documents / papers with respect to the said transactions. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed at a very low price and sold at a high price. The AO in para-17 of his order recorded that statement of assessee was recorded on 19.12.2017. The AO during assessment by referring modus operandi of penny stock scrip issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why sale consideration received on sale of such share should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The AO recorded that assessee filed reply and it was examined. The assessee also requested for cross-examination of parties on whose statement his case was reopened. The request of assessee was rejected on the ground that parties who was made statement is located in Kolkata. The AO treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 14,43,569/- as unexplained credit u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The shares were credited to D-Mat Account. Payments were made to account payee cheque. The shares were sold through registered broker of BSE. Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. During assessment the assessee furnished complete details of purchase, payment of purchase consideration, details of sale, sale consideration was received in bank, STT was paid. The assessee discharged his primary onus in furnishing complete details. The assessee also requested for cross-examination of the persons on whose statement, the Investigation Wing formed their opinion about penny stock. The cross-examination was not allowed. Neither the name of assessee nor his broker was identified by AO. No material is brought on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase law relied ld. AR of the assessee. We find that the AO doubted the transaction of assessee on the basis of report of information in ITD system, which was based on report of Investigation Wing Kolkata. The AO made addition of sale consideration of scrips of GFL Financial India as unexplained taxable income under section 68. The AO also added 3.00% of sale transaction by taking view that the paid commissions to the entry provider. We find that before ld CIT(A), the assessee has furnished complete evidence including contract note of shares, Dmat account details, detail of bank account. However, no adverse evidence was brought against such evidence, nor the assessing officer made adverse comment on such evidences. The assessee also requeste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice of fact that the shares remained in the account of assessee, the assessee also furnished demat account and details of bank transaction about the sale and purchase of shares, the addition was deleted. Further, we find of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Indravadan Jain, HUF in Income Tax Appeal No.454 of 2018 dated 12.07.2023 also held that when Assessing Officer nowhere alleged that transactions made by assessee with a particular broker or share broker was bogus, merely because investigation was done by SEBI against the broker or its activities, the assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction. In a recent decision in PCIT Vs Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal (2023) 155 taxmann.com 549 (....