Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) v. ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Mamta Agarwal (Smt) v. ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Rajesh Agarwal & Sons v. ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Ramakishan Agarwal v. ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org R.K.Agarwal & Sons (HUF) v. ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Sampatti Agarwal ( Smt) v.ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Rajesh Agarwal v.ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Pankaj Kumar Aagrwal v.ITO (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S.68: Cash credits- Bogus capital gains-Penny stocks-Plea that opportunity to cross-examine the witness was not given & investigation report was not furnished is not relevant if assessee unable to successfully controvert findings of the AO and such argument was never made before the lower authorities-Addition is held to be justified [ S. 10(38).45 ]

Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that , Lower authorities have treated the purchase and sale  of shares of SRK Industries Ltd  as sham transaction and denied he claim of exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act and treated  as unexplained cash credits  on the grounds that, the company in which the assessee had purchased the equity shares had no creditability and no prudent investor would make such investment ,there was finding by the investigation wing that syndicate of brokers and broking entities indulging in price rigging , and the motive of price manipulation is only to bring oit the black money as legitimate long term capital gain for which exemption u/s 10 (30) of the Act is available . First time before the Tribunal the opportunity of cross examination  was raised . Tribunal rejected the ground of cross examination  and confirmed the  applying the ratio of decisions in CIT v.Sumati Dayal  ( 1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More  (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) ( AY. 2014-15)