Held that the Department did not dispute that the shares were purchased through broker on recognized stock exchange, that the purchase consideration of shares was made through cheque, that the shares were duly dematerialised, that the shares were sold through stock exchange after the payment of securities transaction tax, that the transactions had been confirmed by brokers, that the payments were received through electronic clearing in the dematerialised account, that the inflow of shares was reflected in the account, that the shares were transferred through dematerialised account and the buyer was not known to the assessee, or that there was no evidence that the assessee had paid cash to the buyer or the broker or any other entry provider for booking long-term capital gains and shares were purchased by the determined buyer. The income generated by the assessee could not be held bogus only on the basis of the modus operandi, generalisation, and assumptions of certain facts. In order to hold income earned by the assessee bogus, specific evidence had to be brought on record to prove that the assessee was involved in collusion with the entry operator or stock brokers for such an arrangements. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. Referred  PCIT v. Krishna Devi (Smt) (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)(HC).  (AY.2013-14)