IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2607 /Del./2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Vaneet Aggarwal, Vs. ACIT, D-95, Circle 14(2), Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, Delhi PAN: AGXPA8770A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri K. Sampath, Adv, Shri V Rajkumar, Adv.

Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 13/03/2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM The Assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-36, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 13.02.2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed his return of income declaring an amount at Rs. 6,15,950/- on 08.09.2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1)

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee.

3. The assessee is a Director in M/s. KTV Projects Pvt. Ltd. and received salary from the same. Further, the assessee declared income from capital gain and income from other sources during the year under consideration. In response to the above notices, Ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and submitted the relevant information as called for.

4. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed exempt income on Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s. HPC Biosciences Ltd. and claimed the exemption of Rs. 41,80,283/-. By relying the Investigation report of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata and the relevant modus operandi adopted by various beneficiaries by opting exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that his M/s. HPC Biosciences Ltd. is also one such company which was identified as a listed penny stock on BSE which was used for generating bogus LTCG. By relying on the detailed findings in the investigation report of Kolkata, he observed that the investigation made by the assessee through Mr. Ankur Jain, was claimed to be an employee in the brokerage company M/s. Narayan Securities Ltd., however, the compliance officer of the Narayan Securities Ltd. had denied the same and stated that no such employee existed. The Ld. AO further observed that Mr. Ankur Jain may be the one of the shareholder in the HPC Biosciences Ltd. immediately before the issue of IPO. He also observed that SEBI, the official regulator of the stock exchange market, had undertaken investigations into the fraudulent IPO issued by HPC Biosciences Ltd. The Ld. AO has a major chart of fund flowing in the IPO of HPC Biosciences with funding group wherein M/s. Narayan Securities Ltd. if one of the key player in mobilizing the funds. The Ld. AO highlighted the investigation carried out by the SEBI relating to fund trials through various entities. Further, the Ld. AO collected the trade log of the assessee from SEBI by issuing of notice 133(6) of the Act. Based on the above report, it was found that the parties which have purchased the shares sold by the assessee are all listed in the SEBI orders as the companies which were used to routing money. By relying on the various reports, the Ld. AO established that M/s. Narayan Securities Ltd.

was found to the involved in money trial.

4.1 Based on the above findings, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee seeking an explanation by the LTCG claimed by the assessee should not be disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted that the public issue launched by HPC Biosciences Ltd. could not be termed fraudulent as all the formalities for launching the public issue were approved by all the Government Departments through ROC, SEBI and BSE. Further, the assessee submitted that she was unaware of the investigations being undertaken by SEBI and further submitted that Section 69A does not apply to the assessee. After cons