TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,38,16,563/- as unexplained investment. 2) He failed to take into consideration that the appellant had provided all the relevant documents to prove that the transaction entered into by the appellant was genuine. 3) He has further failed to appreciate that: a. The assessment done by the assessing officer was merely based on assumptions and presumptions. b. The assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings did not provide copies of the documents and evidence of the investigating wing of Kolkata and statement of Anuj Agarwal and other documents and evidences on which he has relied and come to the conclusion that the transaction of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per share on 28.08.2013. The assessee purchased 15,000 shares for a consideration of Rs. 21,45,000/- and within 1-2 years, the shares were sold a consideration of Rs. 1.38 crore which is several times higher than the purchase price. The AO referring the modus operandi of entry provider of recording the report of Investigation Wing and referring the statement of assessee treated the entire sale consideration of share as unexplained income from other sources. The AO also added 2.00% of commission on the total sale consideration thereby made further addition of Rs. 2,61,208/-. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed his written submission to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entry. To support his contention, the assessee relied on the decision of Supreme Court in PCIT vs Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 579 (SC) wherein it was held that exemption under section 10(38) cannot be disallowed as there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in the investigation report. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee and the assessment order upheld the action of AO. The ld. CIT(A) held that on applying the test of human probability which is difficult to establish beyond doubt the non-genuine of sale value of Rs. 1.38 crore. On the objection of assessee that there is no direct evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2021) 124 taxmann.com 440 (Delhi-Trib.) and in Nitesh Kumar Gandiya vs ITO (2024) 161 taxmann.com 215 (Surat-Trib) while considering the similar capital gain on sale of Lifeline Drugs accepted the transaction as genuine. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that AO was having sufficient information and evidence in the form of report of Investigation Wing that scrip of Lifeline Drugs was penny scrip. The assessee has purchased share at a price of Rs. 134 per share. The shares were sold at a price of more than 6/7 times of purchase price which is beyond human probability. The ld. Sr. DR for the Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o connect the assessee or his broker with the transaction of alleged price rigging. So far as allegation of price rigging is concerned, no role or the activities of the brokers of assessee in price manipulation is brought on record. We find that there is no material is brought on record or adverse finding or report of SEBI about price manipulation by the broker of assessee. No independent investigation of facts was carried out by the lower authorities, if any transaction of assessee even remotely connected with entry provider. 9. We find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Himani M. Vakil (2014) 41 taxmann.com 425 (Guj) held that where assessee duly proved genuineness of sale transaction by bringing on record contract note....