IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.5760/Del/2024 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year:2016-17 INCOME TAX OFFICER, बनाम DEEPAK GOEL, Room No.1411, E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Vs. B-29, Vandana Apartment, Minto Road, New Delhi. Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi.

PAN No.AFYPG1033Q अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate and Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA Revenue by Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 15.12.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 19.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. The present appeal arises from order dated 15.10.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, New Delhi. The main point of contention in this matter is that the assessee apparently traded in the shares of a penny stock company in the name and style of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd. (hereafter “YICL”). Admittedly, the Ld. AO was in possession of information to the extent that the assessee was the beneficiary of allegedly fictitious transactions through one M/s Dutta & Tyagi Group. The Ld. AO proceeded ahead with this information and thereafter added an amount of Rs.55,72,491/- u/s 68 of the Act, by way of alleged bogus claim of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) by the assessee.

1.1 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could succeed on the basis of a detailed, but largely generic reasoning, after relying on several case laws.

1.2 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

“1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.55,72,491/- made by AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.55,72,491/- made by AO on account of bogus sales proceeds of the penny share ignoring the fact that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of trading in shares of Yamini Investment Company Limited (YICL) which is a penny stock scrip and assessee is not eligible for LTCG exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ,the Ld CIT(A) erred in ignoring the facts brought on record by the AO, including that YICL had been established to be a manipulated penny stock by Dutta and Tyagi group as a consequence of search u/s 132 of the IT Act carried out in that case, as well as the non- existential fundamentals of YICL combined with humanly- improbable price surges/manipulations in that scrip which was admittedly done to provide bogus LTCG to intended beneficiaries.

4. The appellant reserves right to add, alter or amend ground of appeal on or before the date of disposal of appeal.”

2. Before us the Ld. DR argued that the assessee had come to the adverse notice of the Department due to a search carried out on the Dutta & Tyagi Group on 16.05.2018. During the course of further enquiries it was found that the scrip of M/s YICL was allegedly use to provide bogus capital gains to interested parties. It was the further submission that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of M/s Dutta & Tyagi Group and also generating fake LTCG from trading in the shares of M/s YICL. The Ld. DR read out various portions from the order of Ld. AO and pointed out that the balance sheet, etc. of M/s YICL were sub-par. It was pointed out that the Ld. AO has mentioned on pages 9 & 10 that there was surprising movement in the price of the M/s YICL scrip. Thereafter, the Ld. DR also pointed out that there is a finding in the Ld. AO’s order that the price movement in the said scrip was not justified on the basis of its weak financials. The Ld. DR assailed the impugned order on the ground that the fact findin