Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed their return of income which was processed. The case was later reopened under Section 147/148 for AY 2011-12. The addition of ₹1,51,02,134/- was made on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares, treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. This addition was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in similar cases, where the addition on account of long-term capital gain from the sale of shares was deleted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of long-term capital gains from sale of shares under Section 68 of the Act is sustainable.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 68, 10(38), 143(1), 143(3), 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Santosh Bamalwa ACIT, Circle-1 C/o A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AEDPB9900P Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT Date of hearing: 09/03/2026 Date of pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R
PER: BENCH
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.10.2025 for the AY 2011-12.
The assessee in the various grounds of appeal has challenged the addition on legal issue as well as on merit. The legal issue raised by the assessee is against the validity of reopening under of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) r.w.s. 148 of the Act, which has been affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and on merit, the assessee has challenged the addition made under Section 68 of the Act by the AO of ₹ 1,51,02,134/- which has been affirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Vs ACIT 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income on 29/08/2012 declaring total income of ₹ 7,66,250/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 26/03/2018 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 20/04/2018. Thereafter, statutory notices alongwith questionnaire were issued and duly complied with by the assessee. During the impugned financial year, the assessee derived income by way of income from house property, short term capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee has sold 50,000 equity shares of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. at a consideration of ₹ 1,54,08,134/- and claimed long term capital gain as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. The said shares were purchased by the assessee for ₹ 3,06,000/-. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information furnished by the assessee, came to the conclusion that the said sale of shares was nothing but accommodation entries arranged by the assessee through operators who operated in an organized manner in the stock exchange and finally ,after treating the said long term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, added the same to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 28/12/2018.
In appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply affirming the order of the Assessing Officer
At the outset of hearing, the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in for the A.Y. 2012-13 order dated 13/12/2023
Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Vs ACIT wherein the identical issue has been decided by the Coordinate Bench in favour of the assessee on merit. The ld. AR referred to the said decision and submitted that the issue may kindly be decided on the same lines and order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the Assessing Officer may be directed to delete the addition.
The ld. Sr.DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities by submitting that the facts of that case were different and therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is distinguishable on facts. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has arranged a bogus long term capital gain through the broker/operators who were engaged in providing accommodation entries. Therefore the ld. DR submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the rival submissions and find that the case of the assessee has been reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act after recording reasons to believe. We note that in the instant financial year, the assessee sold 50,000 equity shares of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. which was listed on Kolkata Stock Exchange for a total consideration of ₹ 1,54,08,134/- through registered broker at the prevailing market rates. The assessee has also paid security transaction tax on sale of these shares and payments were received through normal banking channels. We note that the assessee had acquired these shares in F.Y. 2004-05 for a consideration of ₹ 3,06,000/- and since then it has been holding these shares in the Demat account. The assessee filed before the Assessing Officer all the information/evidences qua the purchases and sale of shares as well besides the proofs of payment made and received. We note that Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Vs ACIT the Assessing Officer primarily relied on the investigation report of Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata in respect of 84 penny stocks. However, we note that the impugned scrip of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. was not included in the said list. We note that the Assessing Officer noted that the said scrip is penny stock company controlled and operated by the entry operators and the financial statements of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. reflecting negligible business activity and losses. Therefore, the said penny stock is nothing but accommodation entry arranged by the assessee through SEBI registered brokers on the Kolkata Stock Exchange. We have perused the decision of the Coordinate Bench passed in the assessee's own case in for the A.Y. 2012-13 order dated 13/12/2023 which arose out of the assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act pursuant to a search action on 20/11/2017 on the assessee and the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 13/12/2023, deleted the addition in respect of long term capital gain on sale of the same scrip of M/S Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. by following the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of related parties covered in the same search in the case of DCIT Vs Bajrang Lal Bamalwa & Ors. in to 66/Gau/2023 order dated 01/09/2023 which is discussed in para 8 below. We also note that the Misc. application filed by the revenue against the said order was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 13/05/2025 and the department has not preferred any further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the said order. The operative portion of the order of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced as under:
“7. As far as the cross-objections are concerned, emphasizing that the issues on merits ought to have been adjudicated on merits, we find that this Tribunal "45. A perusal of these assessment orders would indicate that in five scrutiny cases of the sale of shares, i.e. TFCIL, gain earned by the assessee was accepted as a genuine by the Department itself. Out of these five cases, two are in the re-assessment under section 147 and these assessment orders have been framed after more than one year of the search. Therefore, Department was not doubting the genuineness of the transactions. It is also observed that apart from Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj, the other Hon'ble High Courts have accepted the claim of these alleged bogus long-term capital gains and ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Pushpa Malpani (2012) 20 taxmann.com 597 (Raj HC), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT-vs.- Krishna Devi (supra). In that case, the jump in share price of investment made by the assessee in Goldline was 4849.2%. The Id. Counsel for the assessee has also drew our attention on the tabulated details submitted in his submission and pointed out how certain companies have performed so well and the change was 449% to 312%, whereas certain companies has performed very badly. Therefore, we have made analysis of these break-up in the light of the large number of decisions, namely 21 in number compiled in the written submission. We are of the view that the Department was not possessing any details, which authorize it to doubt the claim made by the assessee. Therefore, even otherwise on merit also, no addition is sustainable."
8. Respectfully following the same, we allow the grounds raised by e assessee in the cross-objection.”
We further note that while passing the said order, the Coordinate Bench has followed the earlier decision in the case of DCIT Vs Bajrang Lal Bamalwa & Ors. in to 66/Gau/2023 order dated 01/09/2023 wherein the addition in respect of the same scrip of long term capital gain was deleted by the Coordinate Bench as made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act on jurisdiction issue as well as on merit. The copy of the order is available at page No. 114 of the paper book. The operative part of the said decision is extracted below:
Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Vs ACIT “45. A perusal of these assessment orders would indicatge that in five scrutiny cases of the sale of shares. i.e. TFCIL, gain earned by the assessee was accepted as a genuine by the Department itself. Out of these five cases, two are in the re-assessment under section 147 and these assessment orders have been framed after more than one year of the search. Therefore, Department was not doubting the genuineness of the transactions. It is also observed that apart from Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj, the other Hon'ble High Courts have accepted the claim of these alleged bogus long-term capital gains and ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Pushpa Malpani (2012) 20 taxmann.com 597 (Raj HC), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT-vs. Krishna Devi (supra). In that case, the jump in share price of investment made by the assessee in Goldline was 4849.2%. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also drew our attention on the tabulated details submitted in his submission and pointed out how certain companies have performed so well and the change was 449% to 312%, whereas certain companies has performed very badly. Therefore, we have made analysis of these break-up in the light of the large number of decisions, namely 21 in number compiled in the written submission. We are of the view that the Department was not possessing any details, which authorize it to doubt the claim made by the assessee. Therefore, even otherwise on merit also, no addition is sustainable.
In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed.”
Considering the above facts and circumstances in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we observe that the case of the assessee is squarely covered on merit by the said decisions as extracted above. Therefore, we respectfully following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches referred to supra, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Vs ACIT 10. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on merit, the legal issue raised challenging the reopening of assessment is not adjudicated at this stage and is being left open to be decided later if the need arises for the same.
In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/03/2026.