##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Mumbai “F” Bench, Mumbai

Before Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) &

Shri Prabhash Shankar (AM)

ITA No. 4914/MUM/2025

(Assessment Year : 2015-16)

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak ACIT-32(3)

4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently CIT, Circle

Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1)

No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan BKC,

Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51.

PAN : AGBPP5972D

Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld. ADV

Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR

Date of Hearing : 04 /11/2025

Date of : 24/12/2025

pronouncement

O R D E R

Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) :-

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order

dated 10.5.2024 impugned herein passed by the Learned Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 2015-

16.

2

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak

2. In the instant case, the Assessee on 10.8.2011 had purchased

50,000 shares of M/s. Conart Trader’s Ltd. on consideration of Rs.

1,00,000/- from M/s. Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd. in physical form

though cheque no. 977940 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Dahisar

Branch. Thereafter Conart Trader’s Ltd. amalgamated with Sunrise

Asian Ltd. and consequently the Assessee received 50,000/-

shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. in lieu of her shares of Conart Trader’s

Ltd. Thereafter the Assessee dematerialized said shares during

June, 2013 and thereafter a gap of more than 30 months, sold

27451 shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. on a consideration of Rs.

1,34,45,414/- and consequently earned long term capital gains of

Rs. 1,28,99,889/- and accordingly claimed the same as exempt

under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, in assessment year

under consideration.

3. The Assessing Officer by considering the said claim of the

Assessee, held that entire shares transactions carried out by the

assessee through set of operator is nothing but accommodation of

assessee’s own unaccounted money and long term capital gains is

pre-arranged and ultimately made the additions of Rs.

1,34,45,414/- being sale proceeds under section 68 of the Act and

of Rs. 5,37,817/- being 4% of the sale price as commission, being

unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, mainly on

the following reasons.

(i) Transactions of shares were not governed by market factors

prevalent at relevant time of such trade, but same were

product of design and mutual connivance on part of the

Assessee and the operator.

(ii) The Assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure

long term capital gains by way of price difference in share

transactions not supported by market factor.

3

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak

(iii) Cumulative events in such transactions of shares revealed

that same were devoid of any commercial nature and fell in

realm of not being bonafide and hence impugned long term

capital gain is not allowable.

(iv) The Assessee failed to discharge his onus.

(v) Ignorance of the Assessee about shares and penny stock

companies.

(vi) Mode of acquisition of shares.

(vii) Sale of shares and unusual rise in the price.

(viii) The Assessee failed to discharge his onus.

(ix) Ignorance of the Assessee about shares and penny stock

companies.

(x) Financial analysis of the penny stock companies.

(xi) Analysis of transaction and end finding of the

investigation wing.

4. The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by

filling first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who though

affirmed the addition of Rs. 13,445,414/- under section 68 of

the Act, however, deleted addition of Rs. 5,37,817/- made

under section 69C made by the Assessing Officer, by partly allowing

appeal of the assessee.

5. Thus, Assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal.

6. Heard both parties and perused the record available on

record. Admittedly, the assessee before the authorities below, has

filed relevant documents and also claimed as under:

“1. The Appellant before Your Honours is a widow and senior

citizen. The Appellant is a regular investor