Held that, merely because a particular scrip was identified as a penny stock by the Department, it did not mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) in respect of long-term capital gains derived from sale of shares. The documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was found to be genuine and no adverse inferences were drawn by the Revenue thereon. The transactions were carried out by the assessee in the secondary market through a registered share broker at the prevailing market prices. Payments were received by the assessee by account payee cheques from the stock exchange through the registered broker. Amounts received on sale of shares were duly subjected to levy of securities transaction tax at the applicable rates. Merely on the basis of Investigation Wing report came to a conclusion that the transactions carried out by the assessee were bogus. No evidence had been brought on record to establish any link between the assessee either with the directors or any other person named in the assessment order or in the SEBI order, as being involved in any price rigging or the exit provider.
Pravin C. Bokadia v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 43 (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 45 : Capital gains-Penny stock-Sale of shares-No evidence to prove that assessee directly involved in price manipulation of shares-Addition based on surmise, suspicion, and conjecture and by making baseless allegations, assessee entitled to exemption. [S.10(38), 68]