Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the involvement of the assessee in the entire chain of generating bogus entries of long-term capital gains and short- term capital loss was taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. The evidence in the form of testimonies of persons in charge of the management and control of the penny stock companies was also taken into account. Such evidence formed the basis for the Assessing Officer to conclude that the short-term capital gains claimed by the assessee were not genuine or market driven but a prearranged transaction noted in the accounts of the assessee in lieu of unaccounted cash. Though the Tribunal had held that the provision of section 68 was not attracted, the Tribunal had still sustained the additions holding that the short-term capital loss should be disallowed as it resulted from bogus transactions. The finding was based on consideration of the entire evidence on record. In view of the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities below and with no tenable evidence with the assessee to the contrary, no substantial question of law arose.( AY.2015-16)