PULKIT GUPTA,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2727/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2026AY 2013-1418 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 held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the assessee was not disputed by the revenue, and no material was provided to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded on presumptions and assumptions, even questioning the amalgamation approved by the Kolkata High Court. The Tribunal stated that once the assessee discharged their onus, the burden shifted to the revenue to prove the transactions were not genuine. The Tribunal observed that the revenue failed to discharge this shifted onus, bringing no material to show that the transactions were not genuine or that the assessee was involved in rigging share prices. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities rejected the LTCG claim without legal or factual basis. Therefore, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee, holding that the assessee was a genuine investor and had genuinely purchased and sold the shares. The addition of Rs. 70,62,901 was directed to be deleted. The remaining legal and general grounds were rendered academic and left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pulkit Gupta, an individual, filed a return for AY 2013-14 declaring an income of Rs. 8,93,500. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) received information from the Investigation Wing alleging that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) through the scrip of M/s Access Global Ltd. The assessee had purchased shares of M/s Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. off-market on 10.07.2010 at Rs. 484 per share, with a 9-month credit period, and payment was debited on 26.04.2011. M/s Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. merged with M/s Access Global Ltd. by order of the Kolkata High Court. The assessee received 28,200 shares of M/s Access Global Ltd. on 03.03.2012 and sold them between 30.11.2012 and 05.12.2012. The ITO, unconvinced by the assessee's evidence, made an addition of Rs. 70,62,901 under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE for bogus LTCG. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is a bonafide investor in the shares of M/s Access Global Ltd., or indulged in acquiring and selling these shares to earn a fictitious claim of LTCG for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee contended that they discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions, establishing themselves as a genuine investor entitled to exemption under Section 10(38). They argued that the purchase was made through banking channels, held for over 12 months, and sold on a recognized stock exchange after paying STT. The assessee also raised legal grounds regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 147, the validity of addition under Section 68, denial of exemption under Section 10(38), and violation of natural justice. The revenue, relying on the lower authorities, argued that the ITO conducted independent investigations, examined materials, and rightly denied the LTCG claim, praying for the dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 10(38),Section 147,Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan&

Hearing: 17.02.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member

I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025: Asstt. Year: 2013-14

Pulkit Gupta, 214A, Ganj Bazar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Meerut 250001, U.P. Ward 1(2)(1), Meerut (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEAPG 2172B Assessee by: Sh. Piyush Agarwal, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2026

ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT (A)/NFAC”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the appeal of the assesse was dismissed and the assessment order dated 29.03.2022 was upheld and the addition made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act was confirmed.

2.

The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee is an individual, has filed

2 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

return of income for AY 2013-14 on 24th July, 2013 declaring a taxable income of Rs. 8,93,500/-. The Income Tax Office is in receipt of information/report from the Investigation Wing came to know all the beneficiaries of bogus Long Term Capital Gain through the scrip of M/s Access Global Ltd which is allegedly controlled by a Syndicate of Brokers, Dummy Directors, Operators and Entry Providers Managers; the list of all beneficiaries contained the name of the assesse. The assessee has allegedly purchased shares of M/s Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company based at Kolkata through M/s Kalimata Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.; the assesse is allowed to purchase 9 months’ credit as the payment for the purchase was finally debited from the bank account of the assessee on 26.04.2011. M/s Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. was got merged with M/s Access Global Ltd by the order of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court. The assessee had purchased 600 shares of Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd at Rs. 484 each off market on 10.07.2010. However, the payment was not made on the same day. The payment for the purchase of shares of Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd was made on 26.04.2011 after availing 9 Months long credit period. Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd got amalgamated with Access Global Limited Vide order dated 15.11.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. 28,200 shares of Access Global Limited got credited into the demat account of the assesse оn 03.03.2012. The assessee sold 28200 shares of

3 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

Access Global Limited through M/s. Prakash Nahata & Co. on 30.11.2012, 03.12.2012, 05.12.2012.

3.

In view of the report of the department regarding claim of bogus long term capital gain through the scrip of M/s Access Global Ltd., a notice u/s 144 of the Act was issued to the assesse and assesse has filed a return on 30.05.2021 declaring an income of Rs. 8,93,500/-; notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 04.10.2021 and subsequently, also issued on different dates wherein the requisite details were called for from the assesse online. In reply the assesse stated that he has allegedly purchased and sold the shares in normal course, submitted purchase bills, payment proof of banking channel, certificate of transfer issued by the Registrar of the Companies, letter of amalgamation received by registered post, Share Certificate and contract note for the sale on which STT is duly paid and bank statement to prove the genuineness of the transaction. However, the ld. AO was not convinced by the evidence submitted by the assesse and had proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 70,62,901/-, on account of bogus long term capital gain/claimed exemption u/s 10(38) and addition was made u/s 68 of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein various cases were referred pertaining to same scrip where the transactions in the shares of

4 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

Access Global Ltd. was held to be genuine. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that during the course of enquiry by the Investigation Wing and by the AO, it was found that the company M/s Access Global Ltd. has got no business, no cash flow statement and no fixed or tangible assets. It was further observed that the AO after doing detailed investigation has made the addition because the appellant has clearly received bogus LTCG from a paper company. It was further observed that the genuineness of the company M/s Access Global Ltd. was not established before the ld. CIT(A) as the assesse could not prove that the said company was doing some real business because the appellant has not enclosed the P&L Account and balance sheet of the company to prove any real business done by the company. While relying upon the judgment of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO v. S.M. Bharwani in the case of Penny Stock and Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT v. Swati Bajaj, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assesse.

5.

Aggrieved by the impugned order the assessee is in appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That each ground of appeal is without prejudice to each other. 2. That notice Issued u/s 148, proceedings and order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 is void-ab-initio, Illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed.

5 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

3.

That the Ld. AO has reopened the assessment u/s 147 only on the borrowed satisfaction and has not applied his own mind before recording the reasons and Issuing notice and concluded the proceedings mechanically on borrowed and premeditated inference without Independent application of mind. So, the order passed by Ld.AO is void ab Initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That the addition of Rs. 70,62,901/- made by the AO u/s 68 cannot be held valid in the eyes of law because assessee is not required to maintain books of accounts, so the addition cannot be made u/s 68. Also no section was mentioned for proposed addition in show cause cum draft assessment order. So, the addition made by the AO is void ab Initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be deleted. 5. That the learned AO has erred both in law and on facts in denying the claim of exemption of long term. capital gain u/s 10(38) of Rs.70,62,901/- payment for purchase made through bank, held for a period exceeding 12 months, sold on recognized stock exchange after payment of STT. So, the addition made by the AO on mere speculation, generalized statements, theoretical assumptions, allegations and assertions, without there being any supporting evidence is void ab initio, Illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be deleted. 6. That the AO is not justified in passing the assessment order on 29.03.2022 within 4 weeks after disposal of objections vide letter dated 28.03.2022 for the objections raised by the assessee on 25.11.2021, so the order passed by Ld. AO is void ab initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 7. That as per the facts of the case and as per law, in spite of specific requests during assessment proceedings the AQ falls in providing: - the statement of M/s Prakash Nahata & Co. against, M/s Access Global Pvt. Ltd. and to produce the concerned for cross-examination

6 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

that the above is in contravention of principle of natural justice, so the order passed by the AO is void ab Initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 8. The Ld. AO erred in disposing of the objections raised by the assessee in mechanical manner through non-speaking order. So, the order passed is void ab initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed.

9.

That the tax levied, interest charged and the penalty imposed is excessive at any rate. 10. That the appellant craved the right to add, amend, and alter any or all of the grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and on the basis of grounds raised in the appeal, it is noticed that the ground no. 5 only pertains to the merit of the matter as other grounds are either general in nature or legal in nature. On the basis of grounds so raised the following issues for consideration arises as under:

“Whether the assesse is a bonafide investor in the share of M/s Access Global Ltd. or the assesse is indulged in acquiring and selling all these shares in order to earn fictitious claim of LTCG so as to get exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act.”

7.

In order to prove the nature of the investment to be genuine and real and not be a bogus LTCG, the preliminary onus is on the assesse to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AR

7 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

for the assesse would submit in that regard that the assesse purchased and sold all shares in normal course, submitted purchase bill, payment proof from banking channel, share transfer form issued by Registrar of Companies, letter of amalgamation received by registered post, demat account, contract note for the sale on which STT is duly paid and bank statement to prove the genuineness of the transaction but the Ld. AO failed to rely on the facts and evidences tendered by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 70,62,901/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and denied exemption u/s 10(38) and addition was made u/s 68 of the Act. In support of above submissions, the ld. AR has submitted the details of the documents submitted before the AO in a chronological manner as under:

Particulars Documents submitted Date of transaction 10.07.2010 Purchase 600 shares of M/s Seaview Page 139of Paper book Purchase Suppliers Private Limited for bill Rs.2,90,400/- from Broker M/s KalimataTradecom Private Limited 31.07.2010 Shares transferred to appellant Page 141 of Paper book Share transfer form Page 142-166 of Paper book Share Transfer Certificates 21.04.2011 Made payment of Rs.2,90,400/-to M/s Page 140 of Paper book Copy of KalimataTradecom Private Limited Bank statement

8 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

15.11.2011 Calcutta High Court order that M/s Seaview Suppliers Private Limited and two other companies Amalgamated with M/s Access Global Limited 16.11.2011 Letter received that M/s Seaview Page 167-169 of Paper book Letter Suppliers Private Limited amalgamated of amalgamation received by with M/s Access Global Private Limited . registered post

03.03.2012 28,200 shares of M/s Access Global Page 170 of Paper book Demat Private Limited transferred to appellant account D mat Account 30.11.2012 12,000 shares sold of M/s Access Global Page171-174 of Paper book Private Limited. On 06.12.2012, Contract note for the sale through Rs.31,29,064/- received in bank recognized stock exchange on account. which STT is duly paid Page 175- 06^12.2012 6,200 shares sold of M/s Access Global 178 of Paper book Bank statement in which sales proceed of shares Private Limited. On 06.12.2012, Rs. 16,16,683/- received in bank account. received 05.12.2012 10,000 shares sold of M/s Access Global Private Limited. On 07.12.2012, Rs.26,07,552/- received in bank account.

8.

In support of his argument, the ld. AR has further relied upon the various judgment in which the same scrip has been considered and transactions has been found genuine, the details of the judgments is extracted below as under:

 Amarjit Kaur Surinder Singh Kochhar Vs ITO vide ITA No. 2513/Mum/2023 Dt. 22.01.2024 by ITAT Mumbai.  Shri Sunny Jain (Deceased) through Legal heir Smt. Monika Jain Vs ITO vide ITA No. 1167/Chd/2019 pronounced on 04.08.2022byITAT Chandigarh  Shri Jatinder Kumar Jain Vs ITO vide ITA No. 338/Chd/2018 pronounced on 14.06.2022 by ITAT Chandigarh

9 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

 Smt. Ritu Garg Vs ACIT vide ITA No.1339/CHD/2018 pronounced on 12.01.2023 by ITAT Chandigarh  Smt. Anju Jindal Vs ACIT vide ITA No.1341/CHD/2018 pronounced on 17.03.2023 by ITAT Chandigarh

Further Reliance is being placed on following judgments:

 PCIT vs Renu Aggarwal153 taxmann.com 579 pronounced on 03.07.23 by Supreme Court.  PCIT vs Parasben kasturchand Kochar130 taxmann.com 177 pronounced on 02.08.21 by Supreme Court.

 PCIT vs Karuna Garg ITA 477/2022dated 23.11.22by High Court of Delhi.  PCIT vs Smt. Krishna Devi 126 taxmann.com 80dated 15.01.21by High Court of Delhi.  Archit Gupta vs ACIT ITA No. 2527/DEL/2022 dated 29.10.25 by Jurisdictional ITAT Delhi.

9.

We now proceed to discuss the cases relied by the assesse in brief as under:

9.1 Amarjit Kaur Surinder Singh Kochhar Vs ITO vide ITA No. 2513/Mum/2023 Dated 22.01.2024 by ITAT Mumbai where the same scrip was involved, relevant finding contained in 15 to 17 are as under:

15.

Considered the overall facts, submissions and the information find that the assessee has furnished the financials, details of broker and the transactions status. The AO has doubted the purchase and sale of shares and observed that the price rise is not commensurate with the financials of the investee company. The assessee has substantiated with all details and information and the AO has relied on the investigation report of income tax department and treated the long

10 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

term capital gains on sale of shares as not genuine. Further the A.O. has not made any enquiry or independent investigation and relied on the statement of the parties in the survey U/sec133A of the Act and the assessee's name is not included in the list of investigation report. The fact remains that the assessee has submitted the requisite details in respect of purchase and sale of shares were not disproved. The transaction of purchase and sale of shares is through banking channel. Further as discussed in the above paragraphs the Honble Tribunal dealt on the same scrip of share and for the same assessment and has granted relief to the asseessee. Accordingly, considering facts, circumstances, ratio of judicial decisions, submissions, evidences and rely on the judicial precedents and set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to delete the additions and allow the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee. 16. Since, the grounds of appeal on merits are decided in favour of the assessee, hence the grounds of appeal with respect to validity of reassessment proceedings raised by the assessee becomes academic and are left open. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”

9.2 In Sunny Jain (Deceased) through Legal heir Smt. Monika Jain v. ITO in ITA No. 1167/Chd/2019 dated 04.08.2022, the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench where the LTCG of Rs. 2,99,97,757/- on the sale of shares of M/s Access Global Ltd. (same scrip) was involved, it was held that the assesse has successfully discharged the onus cast upon him in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Act because the AO failed to bring on record any part of the report of the Investigation Wing wherein the name of the assesse has ever been named and implicated and the lower authorities have failed to bring on record any evidence

11 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

to prove the transactions carried out by the assesse were not genuine or the documents furnished in support of the claim of the assesse were not authenticated. The impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) were deleted.

9.3. In Smt. Sudesh Rani case v. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 1338/Chd/2011 order dated 12.01.2023, the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench while dealing with the same scrip held that the Assessing Officer has in-fact failed to carry out preliminary enquiry that the assesse has originally purchased shares of M/s Mepple Group Ltd. and on its amalgamation was allotted shares of M/s Access Global Pvt. Ltd. in exchange of its existing holding and that the purchases so made were bogus and therefore, where the purchase had not been doubted, how sale had been held to be bogus.

9.4. The ld. AR has also relied on the case of PCIT v. Smt. Renu Agarwal [2023] 153 taxmann.com 579 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP against order of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in PCIT v. Smt. Renu Agarwal wherein the AO has disallowed exemption claimed by assesse u/s 10(38) and made additions to income of assesse on the ground that assesse was involved in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG. The ld. CIT(A) deleted addition and ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. On

12 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

appeal to High Court, it was observed that the ld. CIT(A) had specifically held that there was no adverse comment in form of general and specific statement by Principal Officer of stock exchange or by company whose shares were involved in these transactions and the name of the assesse was neither quoted by any of such persons nor any material relating to assessee was found at any place where investigation was done by Investigation Wing. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the order of ITAT and Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP.

9.5. The ld. AR further relied in the case of PCIT v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar 133 taxmann.com 177 (SC) wherein the addition made by the Assessing Officer while denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on account of LTCG claimed on sale of shares and the order of the Tribunal was upheld wherein it was observed that the assessee by submitting records of purchase bills, sale bills, demat statement, etc. had discharged his onus of establishing said transactions to be fair and transparent and the same not being earned from bogus companies and LTCG were eligible for exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act.

9.6 The ld. AR further relied on the case of PCIT v. Smt. Krishna Devi wherein similarly the addition were deleted by the ITAT and same was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court because there was

13 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

no dispute that the shares of two companies were purchased by the assessee online, the payments have been made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized, and, further, sales were routed through demat account and, sale consideration has been made through banking channel.

9.7. The ld. AR further relied the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCTI v. Karuna Garg in ITA No. 477/2022 order dated 23rd November, 2023 wherein the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

9.8. Lastly, the ld. AR has relied on the case of Hon’ble jurisdictional Tribunal in ITA No. 2527/Del/2022 order dated 29.10.2025 wherein also the assesse has purchased the shares directly from the company through share transfer from other party and subsequently, sold the same in stock exchange and it was noted that there was no discrepancy in the documents filed by the assessee claiming the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. It was further observed that even though all the characteristics of the penny stock exists in the present case, still the revenue has not brought on record any materials linking the assesse in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry, price rigging or exit providers. Even in the SEBI report, there is no mention or reference to the involvement of the assesse. It was further held that the assesse who is one of the beneficiary in these

14 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

transactions, merely is an investor who has entered in investment fray to make quick profit. In this case, the cases relied by the AO in the case in hand i.e. Sumati Poddar v. ITO and Sumati Dayal v. CIT were also discussed and it was held that the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT and Suman Poddar v. ITO are of no assistance of the Revenue as the said cases were decided on their own facts.

10.

The ld. AR has submitted that the assesse has successfully discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions and has established that he was a genuine investor and the LTCG claimed by the assesse was perfectly legal, justified and genuine and therefore the assesse was entitled to exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act.

11.

The ld. DR on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of the lower authorities stating that the ld. AO has done the investigation/enquiries himself and has not simply relied upon the Investigation Wing. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. AO has examined the materials and the submissions and the details and has rightly denied the claim of LTCG made by the assesse and as such he prayed for dismissed of the appeal.

12.

We have considered the submissions made at bar. In view of the argument raised by the assesse wherein he has referred

15 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

to various documents relied by the assesse and the genuineness of those documents has neither been disputed by the revenue nor any material has been provided before us to believe that the said documents relied by the assesse were not genuine with respect to the sale and purchase of the shares of the scrip involved. The legal precedent relied by the assesse are also supporting the case of the assesse to the effect that the assesse is a genuine investor and there is no material to conclude that he was involved in rigging the price of the scrip of Access Global Ltd. company in any manner. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer has proceeded more on presumptions and assumptions and he has even questioned the amalgamation of M/s Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. into M/s Access Global Ltd. which has been approved by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court.

13.

Once the assesse has discharged the onus successfully to establish the genuineness of the transactions having been done by him while purchasing the share of M/s Access Global Pvt. Ltd., the onus is thus shifted to the revenue to establish that the transactions made by the assesse was not genuine and was a result of bogus claim of LTCG through rigging the price of share of the scrip involved. We have also noticed that the assesse has purchased the shares of M/s Seaview Suppliers Ltd. which was lawfully amalgamated bythe order of Hon’ble High Court into M/s

16 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

Access Global Pvt. Ltd. along with three other companies. On amalgamation of M/s Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. into M/s Access Global Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was allotted 47 share for one share of Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer has raised doubt about the said transactions on the ground that M/s Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. had no cash flow statement, no business, no income and no fixed or tangible assets. However, no material in that regard has been brought to our knowledge either in the order of the lower authorities or by way of submissions of the ld. DR. We have further noticed that the observations of the ld. Assessing Officer in para 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of the Assessment Order with regard to the dubious nature of stock broker M/s Prakash Nahata & Co. through whom the assessee claimed to have sold the shares of M/s Access Global Ltd., in the absence of any material brought to our notice are not correct to say that the assessee was acting in convince with M/s Access Global Ltd. so as to raise the bogus LTCG claim for seeking exemptions u/s 10(38) of the Act. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the assessee has ever been investigated by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department or any question has ever been raised regarding rigging the price of shares of scrip in question by the assessee. The revenue has thus failed to discharge the onus shifted upon to prove transactions carried out by the assessee was not

17 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

genuine and thus we are of the considered view that the lower authorities has rejected LTCG claim of the assessee for exemptions u/s 10(38) without any legal and factual basis. In view of the above discussion, the question framed by us in the beginning of the order is decided in favour of the assesse and against the revenue by holding that the assessee, in the given facts and circumstances, has successfully established that he was a genuine investor and genuinely purchased the shares of Seaview Suppliers Pvt. Ltd and subsequently on account of amalgamation of it into M/s Access Global Pvt. Ltd. has acquired 28,200/- share by way of transfer to his demat account. He has further succeeded and discharged onus that he has genuinely and successfully sold the shares of M/s Access Global Pvt. Ltd. on 06.12.2022 and 07.12.2012 through demat account and payment has been received through banking channel.

14.

In view of the above discussion and the legal precedents relied by the assessee, the ground no. 5 raised by the assesee in appeal with respect to the merits of the case is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

15.

In view of the our decision on the ground no. 5, the decision on remaining grounds which are either general or legal in nature is rendered academic and we have left the same open and has

18 I.T.A. No. 2727/Del/2025 Pulkit Gupta

not adjudicated them. For the above reasons the impugned order is set aside. The AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 70,62,901/- accordingly.

16.

The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court as on 15.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 15/05/2026 *G.P. Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →