PRAFULLA JAYANTILAL GANGER,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a regular trader and the transaction was an intraday speculative one, not an accommodation entry for tax benefits. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee traded shares of M/s. Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (VHFC) on the same day, incurring a speculation loss. The Assessing Officer added the sale consideration as unexplained credit, alleging long-term capital gain, which the CIT(A) confirmed.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the validity of re-opening of assessment and the addition of sale consideration of shares as unexplained credit, specifically whether it constituted a genuine transaction or an accommodation entry.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R
Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 31.08.2021, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s143(3) r.w.s 147, AY 2011-12. 2 PRAFULLA JAYANTILAL GANGER 2. In the various of grounds of Appeal, the Assessee has challenged the validity of re-opening u/s.147; and on merits, addition of Rs. 4,88,848/- as unexplained credit on account of sale consideration of shares of M/s. Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.
The facts in briefs are that, Assessee is an individual having income from speculation business, capital gain and income from other sources. The Assessee was regularly engaged in the activity of trading of shares and securities and the resulted income/loss was offered to tax under the head business income. During the year under reference Assessee has traded in 414 scripts listed with the stock exchange which is evident from the Global Summary report issued by the broker the copy which has been placed in the paper book from paged 64-84.
Further, from the records it is evident that, out of the 414 scrip traded by the assessee during the year under reference, one scrip, viz., M/s. Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (VHFC) was alleged to be a penny stock scrip as per the findings of DDIT (Inv) Unit 6(2), Mumbai. As evident from the Global report, the Appellant PRAFULLA JAYANTILAL GANGER has purchased shares of VHFC for a consideration of Rs.5,01,024/- and sold the shares on the very same day at a consideration of Rs.4,88,848/- and accordingly, speculation loss of Rs.12,176/- was declared in the return of income of the Appellant.
Before, the Assessing officer, the Assessee has submitted various documents to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction, that the there is no exemption claimed whatsoever in the return of income, in fact from the intraday trading activity, she has suffered a loss of Rs.12,176/-. The genuineness of the transactions undertaken in respect of script M/s. Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd was proved from the following: Contract notes in respect of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Bank statement evidencing payments made to/received from the registered broker. Global summary report from the registered broker for the year under reference. Ledger account of Your Appellant in the books of Broker.
PRAFULLA JAYANTILAL GANGER Computation of income and ITR Acknowledgement for the year under reference.
Further, Assessee submitted that the; The shares were traded in the open market and listed on the stock exchange as regulated by SEBI and Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was duly paid and hence no manipulation is possible under any circumstances whatsoever. The share was not a penny stock at the time of trading and hence no adverse inference should be drawn. The shares were held by Your Appellant for not even a single day as she had purchased and sold the share on same day itself and hence there is no question of manipulation. The rise and fall in its share prices could be due to the market forces of demand and supply, which is beyond the control of Your Appellant and hence the contention that prices have been artificially rigged high is invalid and thus no adverse inference should be drawn. No benefit is taken by the Appellant by entering into intra-day transaction for sale of such shares as nature of such PRAFULLA JAYANTILAL GANGER transaction would not give rise to convert the unaccounted money into capital gain. In fact the Appellant has suffered a loss of Rs.12,176/-by entering in to such transactions. No benefit of long term capital gain arose out of trading activity of such shares and hence there is no question of claiming any tax benefit. There is no offline transfer of shares in either purchase or sale transaction in the case of your Appellant and hence there is no chance of manipulation. There is no cash deposit or withdrawal from the bank account of your Appellant pursuant to trading activity in respect of the shares.
However, the Ld. Assessing Officer based on some general finding of the investigation viewing held that Assessee was one of the beneficiary of selling of shares of said company for consideration of Rs. 4,88,848/-. In fact, Assessing Officer has presume that Assessee has earned long term capital gain which is an exempt. Which fact is incorrect.
PRAFULLA JAYANTILAL GANGER 8. The Ld. CIT(A), has simply conformed the order of the Assessing Officer without any discussion.
After hearing both the parties, I find that first of all, Assessee is regular trader who has traded in 414 scrips during the year. The Assessee has purchased the share of VHFC online from the Bombay Stock Exchange for consideration of Rs. 5,01,024/- on 14.01.2011; and on the same day was sold at Rs. 4,88,848/-. Thus, Assessee incurred speculation loss of Rs. 12,176/-. It was intraday transaction which was speculative in nature as there was no delivery of share. There is no benefit of long term capital gain taken by the Assessee which has been alleged by the Assessing Officer who was not even verified the records. It is not a case of any accommodation entry in some “Penny Stock” where Assessee has bought the share for any exempt long term capital gain or long term capital loss or short term capital loss. Once the Assessee is dealing in 414 scrips and out of which one scrip was intraday transaction, it cannot be held that Assessee was any beneficiary of some accommodation entry by some any entry operator. Thus, the PRAFULLA JAYANTILAL GANGER addition made by Assessing Officer and as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted.
Accordingly, Appeal by the Assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026