Assessee had applied for 1,50,000 equity shares of 10 each of Pine Animation Ltd (PAL ) in the preferential issue of shares . Payment was made by Cheque on 9-3 -2013 . The shares were disclosed in the balance sheet. Shares were split in to Rs  1 per share by PAL on 21-5 -2013 which was demated . Assessee sold the shares through broker Geojit  on which STT charges were paid . The assesse claimed long term capital gain as exempt u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. The AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act and denied the exemption .  The AO held that the the appellant has gained  return of 9362. 45 % .  ie.   10 Rs share was sold at an average price of 946. 24 per share  which is un realistic . CIT (A) affirmed the order of the AO. On appeal  allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that , addition cannot be made on presumptions . Relied on the observation of Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagt Ambica Ram v. CIT ( 1959 ) 37 ITR 288 ( SC) , Tribunal also relied on the  ratio of supreme Court  on the propostion that just the modus operendi  , generalisation , preponderance of human probalibities  cannot be the only basis for rejecting the claim of the aseessee . Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the valdidity and correctness of the documents evidences produced , the same cannot be rejected by the  assessee. Tribunal relied on the ratio of following case laws , Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151( SC) wherein the court held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises  , suspicion and conjectures . In the case of CIT v. Dault Ram  Rawatmull  (1973 ) 87 ITR 349 ( SC)   the honourable supreme Court held that , the onus to prove that the apparent is not real on the party who claims to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence , which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstances unerringly raising  interference to that effect. The Hourable Supreme Court in the case of Umacharn Shaw & Bros  v .CIT ( 1959 ) 37 ITR 271 ( SC)  held that suspicion howsoever strong , cannot take place of evidence . Accordingly the addition was delted . In one of the assessee as no incriminating material was found during the search . The addition was deleted following the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v.  Continetal ware housing Corporation ( Nava Sheva ) Ltd ( 2015) 374 ITR 645  ( Bom )( HC)   and All Cargo Logistics vide appeal Civil 8546 of 2015 SLP 5254 of 2016 .  ( AY. 2012 -13, 2013 -14 , 2014 -15)