SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order\nheld that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by\nassessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in\npenny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accomodation\nof LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

69A is not valid in law. ..” 17. In our considered view, the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked by the Revenue Authorities, since the assessee has offered explanation regarding the sales made and disclosed the same in the VAT Returns of the assessee. We also find from the statements of the Managing Partners recorded under section