The assessee had made investment in 62500 Equity Shares of an entity namely  Santoshima Trade Link Ltd (STL) during the month of September 2011 . The face value of the share was Rs 10 peer share with premium of Rs 10 per share , accordingly the assessee has paid Rs 12.50 lacs to acquire the said shares . The  shares were allotted and were received in physical form . The shares were dematerialised during march 2012 . Mean while STL  got merged with another entity namely  Sunrise Asian Ltd ( SAL) pursuant of scheme of Amalgamation u/s 391 to 394 of the Companies Act , 1956 which was duly approved by the Honourable Bombay High Court  . In the month of June 2013  SAL was a public limited Company and its shares were traded at Bombay Stock Exchange . The Assessee sold the shares in the month of March 2014  . Since the Shares were held more than one year  the shares were sold through broker by paying  Securities Transactions Tax ( STT )  . The assessee earned the long term capital  gains of Rs. 293 -38 lacs . The Assessee has shown long term capital gains on sale of shares and claimed exemption under section 10 (38) of the Act . Th AO has doubted the transactions and held that SAL was merely a paper company  engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries  .The search was conducted on the assessee on 5-11 2014  .  Applying the ratio of judgement in Sumati Dayal  v.CIT  (1995   ) 214 ITR 801 (SC) ,the AO assessed the long term as cash credits and also made addition of 2% commission thereon as explained u/s 69C of the Act . Order of AO is affirmed by the CIT (A) . On appeal allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the AO has not discharged the onus of controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record any cogent material to sustain the addition. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without establishing the vital link between the assessee and other entities. The whole basis of making additions is third party statement and no opportunity of cross-examination has been provided to the assessee to confront the said party. As against this, the assessee’s position that that the transactions were genuine and duly supported by various documentary evidences, could not be disturbed by the revenue .( Referred  Andaman Industries Ltd   v. CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) ,   Kishanchand Chellaram v CIT. v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) ITA. No.7648/Mum/2019 dt 11-8- 2020 and Ors   ( AY 2014 015)