Dismissing the appeals of the revenue the Tribunal held that the assessee’s purchase and sale transactions were duly backed by sufficient documentary evidence such as purchase bills, bank statements, dematerialised account statements and sale contract notes. The sales were done in the online mechanism through recognised stock exchanges wherein there was no privity of contract between the assessee and prospective buyers of shares, the funds moved through banking channels and the shares through the assessee’s dematerialised account. These items of evidence were uncontroverted and all conditions prescribed under section 10(38) were duly fulfilled by the assessee. Moreover, the whole basis for disregarding these transactions was merely P’s statements recorded during survey under section 133A of the Act, which had no evidentiary value unless backed by cogent corroborative material on record. No opportunity of cross-examination of those making adverse statements was provided to the assessee despite specific request therefor. The assessee was not named in the investigation report or in P’s statement. Neither was there any admission or finding of exchange of cash between the assessee and P. No addition could be made based merely on suspicion, conjectures, surmise or third-party statement recorded at the back of the assessee. As the addition made by the Assessing Officer was without basis, it was rightly deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals). (AY. 2013-14, 2014-15)