PRAKASH KUMAR AGRAWAL & SONS (HUF),RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 366/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 July 2026AY 2014-159 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine transactions through the stock exchange, demat account, and banking channels. The revenue failed to establish any direct nexus between the assessee and share rigging activities or any conscious involvement in obtaining bogus long-term capital gains.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 39 days late. The assessee claimed the delay was due to reasons explained in an affidavit, while the revenue argued it was due to the assessee's negligence. The tribunal condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the revenue on account of long-term capital gains from penny stocks was justified without establishing a direct nexus with the assessee's involvement in rigging activities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Aadarsh Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru, dated 09.01.2026 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 39 days. That explaining the said delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted condonation peti

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →