Assessee had purchased the shares of ETTL in FY 1999-00 and sold the same in FY 2014-15. She had also received some shares as a gift from her son who was holding the same since 1989-90. Thus the shares were held for around 15-25 years before they were sold in the market through stock exchange. The AO on the basis of a report of Kolkata Investigation Directorate and other circumstantial evidence alleged that the assessee had entered into a colourable device to evade tax by obtaining accommodation entry in the form of LTCG on sale of penny stocks and held the same liable to tax u/s 68 of the Act. The ITAT observed that, a taxpayer will not wait for 15-20 years to convert their black money through some non-genuine price-rigging in the very distant future. The ITAT further observed that the genuineness of transactions is doubted merely on the basis of the report of investigation wing and recording of statement of various unidentified promoters/ brokers/ associated persons/ intermediaries, etc. who were neither shown to be linked to the assessee nor any allegation was shown to be made qua the assessee or the transaction under consideration. It was further observed that no SEBI report or Stock Exchange report or cross examination of the operators / intermediaries was provided/ carried out. Thus the ITAT held that the AO had taken action against the assessee on the basis of generalised inputs received by him without taking cognizance of the overwhelming fact of the holding period of shares and without showing any nexus or live link with the assessee, which facts, according to the ITAT, were recognized by the CIT(A). The ITAT therefore held that the overwhelming factor of extraordinary period of holding shares prior to sale transcends all other considerations and exonerates the assessee from any kind of impropriety. Revenue’s appeal was accordingly dismissed.  The assessee  filed an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules 1963 and contened that section 68 could not have been invoked in the absence of books of books of account. The Tribunal held that the issue not raised before the CIT(A) cannot be raised under rule 27 of the ITATRules,1963   (AY .2015-16)