ORDER

PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 10/01/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2016 by the ITO, Ward-4(1), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2014-15 (AY).

2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 52,78,770/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of equity shares.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee is an individual, filed her e-return of income for AY 2014-15 declaring income of Rs. 6,78,420/- furnished on 15.07.2014. Subsequently, case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and duly served on the assessee. On perusal of Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) reveals that assessee had sold 10000 shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. for a value of Rs. 50,27,400/-. Ld.AO noticed that assessee had claimed to have earned LTCG on sale of shares of Rs. 48,27,400/- as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. In her written submissions, assessee stated that she purchased 10000 equity shares of M/s. Conart Traders Ltd. for Rs. 2,00,000/- in physical form from Santoshma Trade Links. The said companies were subsequently amalgamated with Sunrise Asian Ltd. which is listed company in Bombay Stock Exchange. The Ld. AO observed that assessee sold the shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. through BSE and has claimed LTCG at Rs. 48,27,400/-. It is also observed that this is nothing but an attempt to hide the true nature of transactions and are bogus and the assessee had taken the accommodation entries. Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) making addition of Rs. 50,27,400/- on account of ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68 of the Act towards sale proceeds and Rs. 2,51,370/- (commission @ 5% of Rs. 50,27,400/-) on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act.

4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the additions made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that onus was on assessee to prove the transaction leading to claim of LTCG as a genuine transaction. Assessee failed to provide justification for quantum increase in prices of share of said penny stock despite weak financials. Initial investment in company of unknown credential and subsequent jump in share prices of such a company cannot be an accident or windfall but could be possible, because of manipulation in share prices in a pre-planned manner.

5. Further aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares in preferential allotment. He submitted that the shares were dematerialized and subsequently sold in Stock Exchange platform. The purchase and sale of shares have entered and exited in the D-mat account of the assessee. The assessee has also furnished all the documents to prove the purchases and sales. He further submitted that the SEBI has not conducted any enquiry on the transactions carried on by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has made investments on the basis of advice given by some known persons and the same was proved to be right decision also. The Ld. counsel further submitted that it was not shown by the Ld. AO that the assessee was part of any group which involved in manipulation of the prices of the above said shares. He submitted that the Ld. AO has made the additions on suspicious basis disbelieving the transactions carried on by the assessee. However, the Ld. AO has not brought any independent material on record to show that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares undertaken by the assessee were not genuine. In fact, the Ld. AO ha