IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2527/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Archit Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of B-41, Kailsah Colony, Income Tax, Circle 29, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension PAN: AEUPG2360R New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv, Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv Revenue by Sh. Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) ’ for short] dated 19/09/2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income at Rs. 55,22,740/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). A search and seizure action was conducted u/s 132 of the Act by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on some share brokers and on the basis of the information received from the said investigation wing, assessment of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. It was the allegation of the A.O. that the Assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries of bogus Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares of M/s Goenka Business and Finance Ltd. Assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 of the Act on 24/01/2022 by making an addition of Rs. 47,22,700/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24/01/2022, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19/09/2022, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 19/09/2022, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in the order of the Tribunal dated 06/11/2024 in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14, ITA No. 2624/Del/2022 and 2625/Del/2022.

Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

4. Per contra, the ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the lower authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Assessee.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 vide order dated 06/11/2024 held as under:-

8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee had made huge profit out of this investment because of this, it makes the script as suspicious and penny stock. We cannot agree to the above observation, merely because of huge profit, it does not make the script a penny stock. Further, it is fact on record that the financials of the company are not commensurate with the purchase and sale price in the market. The assessee has purchased the shares directly from the company and through share transfer from other party, subsequently, sold the same in the stock exchange. However, there are no discrepancies in the documents filed by the assessee claiming the deductions u/s 10(38) of the Act. At the same time, even though all the characteristics of the penny stock exists in the present case, still the revenue has not brought on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry, price rigging or exit providers. Even in the SEBI report, there is no mention or reference to the involvement of the assessee. We can only presume that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in these transactions merely as an investor who has entered in investment fray to make quick profit. Even the Assessing Officer has applied the presumptions and concept of human probabilities to make the additions without their being any material against the assessee. We observe that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Z