RAJESH DINKAR MORE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 153/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2026AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no fault with the documents submitted by the assessee and no direct evidence of price rigging. Relying on decisions of coordinate benches, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,26,395 under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit for share sale proceeds, treating the company as a penny stock. An additional Rs. 3,791 was added under Section 69C for unexplained expenses. The assessee provided documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the share transactions were genuine and whether the additions under Section 68 and Section 69C were justified based on the evidence provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Pronounced: 17.09.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. NFAC, Delhi/ Ld. CIT(A) vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083369542(1) dated 05-Dec-2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in Confirming the addition of Rs. 1,26,395/-U/s 68 of the Act.

2) The Ld. CIT(A) is also erred in confirming addition of Rs 3,791/-u/s 69C of the Act. Being unexplained expenses/Commission.

3) The appellant request to delete the addition confirmed by the CIT (A).

4) The appellant craves to add, alter or omit any or all of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

2.

All the grounds raised by the assessee are interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the AO under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

3.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the order passed by the Revenue Authorities.

4.

On perusal of the facts on record, we find that the AO made an addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act amounting to Rs. 1,26,395, treating the sale proceeds of shares of M/s. Marvel Capital and Finance Limited as unexplained cash credit. The AO, while passing the assessment order, reached the conclusion that the said company, M/s. Marvel Capital and Finance Limited, is a penny stock and relied upon the report of the Investigation Wing.

5.

To prove the genuineness of the transactions, the assessee placed on record a Paper Book (pages 1 to 14), which includes the computation of speculation profit and short-term capital gains, scrip-wise capital gain reports from the broker, ITR acknowledgement, computation of income, 2 and other supporting documents to demonstrate that the transactions were genuine.

6.

Apart from this, we notice that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) found any fault in the documents placed on record by the assessee. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence establishing the assessee's involvement in price rigging. The assessee has also relied upon decisions of coordinate Benches wherein, under identical facts and circumstances, such additions were deleted.

7.

Thus, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, as well as the decisions of coordinate Benches on similar issues, we direct the AO to delete the addition made under Section 68 along with the consequential addition made under Section 69C of the Act.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 17.09.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: RAJESH DINKAR MORE , ROOM NO. 12 5TH FLOOR, 28TH MARUTI 1 LANE FORT MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400001, MAHARASHTRA ITO WARD 17(3)(1), ROOM NO. 125 1ST FLOOR, KAUTILYA 2 BHAVAN, C-41 TO C43 BLOCK BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →