Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were on account of detailed enquiries carried out by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate with regard to 84 penny stock companies and the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The modus operandi involving operators, intermediaries and the beneficiaries had already been detailed in the investigation report prepared and disseminated by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate. Similar investigations were also conducted by the Directorate of Investigation at Mumbai and Ahmedabad. After a thorough investigation, the Assessing Officer concluded that : (a) the scrip was a penny stock, purchased at a low price, which was over a period of time ramped up by the operators acting in benami names or name lenders, the purchases were off market purchases and not reported on the exchange ; (b) the purchases were back dated, i. e., per a back dated contract note, paid for in cash, so that there was no trail ; (c) the purchases were in the physical form, and dematerialised only subsequently ; generally long after the purchase date, being back dated and, further, close to the date of sale; and (d) the investee was a penny stock company, with no credentials, and the sale rates were artificially hiked, with no real buyers, so that the inference of the sales being bogus, was unmistakable. No new facts or circumstances had been placed on record. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the authorities and of the Commissioner (Appeals). .Followed  Pavankumar M. Sanghavi v ITO 81 taxmann.com 308 (Ahd) (Trib)  ? ( AY.2014-15)