Hemantkumar Mansukhlal Soni, HUF, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 519/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1717 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAUMYA PANDEY JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. DIVATIA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Onus to prove; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Wrong claim; Earning of tax free income; Bogus
• Section: 147; 250; 68

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठअहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hemantkumar Mansukhlal Soni, HUF 2254 Mahurat Pole Manekchowk Ahmedabad-380001. PAN : AABHH 1182 F Vs ITO, Ward-1(3)(1) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, AR Revenue by : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/D a t e o f H e a r i n g : 18/06/2024 घोषणा क तारीख /D a t e o f Pr o no u nc e me nt: 04/09/2024 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.04.203 15.3.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under: “1.1 The order passed by U/s,250 passed on 27.04.2023 by NFAC,(CIT(A), Delhi, (for short NFAC) upholding that the capital gain on sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. was not genuine and thereby upholding the addition of Rs.59,93,278/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced in support of the capital gain. The Id.NFAC has grossly ignored crucial facts relating to the impugned capital gain such as the holding period, manner of purchase and sale etc. ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 2 3.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the capital gain on sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. was not genuine and thereby upholding the addition of Rs.59,93,278/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 made by AO. 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. NFAC ought not to have upheld that the capital gain on sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. was not genuine and thereby upholding the addition of Rs.59,93,278/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 made by A.O.” 3. Ground no.3.1 and 3.2 were stated by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee to be the only effective grounds for adjudication before us. Ground no.1.1 and 2.1 were stated to be general in nature and therefore are not being dealt with by us. 4. The solitary issue, it was pointed out during the course of hearing before us and as is evident from the grounds being adjudicated before us, relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of sale of shares of M/s Monotype India Ltd. of Rs.59,93,278/- treating the transaction as penny stock transaction/mere accommodation entry taken by the assessee to infuse its own unaccounted income, rejecting the claim of the assesse that it was a genuine transaction of sale of shares resulting in long term capital gains returned as exempt from tax in terms of provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. 5. Both the parties were heard, with the contention of the ld.counsel for the assesse being that the assessee had duly discharged its onus of proving genuineness of the transaction and the Revenue had no basis for treating the same as a bogus pre-mediated transaction of sale of shares except for information gathered from its own investigation, details of which were not even revealed to the assessee. ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 3 6. The ld.DR, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee relying on the orders of the authorities below, stating that the Department had sufficient evidence proving that the transaction of sale of shares was bogus, pre- mediated and a mere accommodation entry and the assessee was unable to discharge its onus to prove genuineness of the same. 7. For adjudicating the issue certain preliminary and pertinent facts need to be brought out. 8. The transaction of sale of shares held to be bogus/accommodation entry, pertained to that of M/s Monotype India Ltd., which the assessee had sold during the year for a consideration of Rs.59,93,278/-. The assessee had returned income earned on the same as long term capital gain earned and treated the same as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, which was denied by the AO, whose order was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). This addition was made to the income of the assessee in re-assessment proceedings in order passed under section 147 of the Act. The reassessment proceedings being initiated on the basis of the information available with the AO, derived from the search and survey action conducted on a syndicate of persons lead by Shri Naresh Jain on 19.3.2019 by DDIT(Invest), Unit-7(1) and 7(3), Mumbai, revealing that Shri Naresh Jain and Associates were involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gains or loss in scrip to various beneficiaries across the country. The information revealed the assessee to be one such beneficiary to the tune of Rs.59,93,278/- by selling scrip dealt in by Shri Naresh Jain and his associates, by the name Monotype India Ltd. ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 4 The assessee has argued that it had discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction by pointing out that – i) All documentary evidences of purchase and sale of this particular share were filed; ii) The purchase and sale transactions were shown to be undertaken through banking channels; iii) Purchase was effected in 2011 while the sale was effect in 2016 and 2017 i.e. after a gap of five to six years; iv) Shares were DEMATED immediately on purchase and sales were booked also through DEMAT account; v) The assessee was trader of shares dealing in a number of shares /scrips that too through a renowned broker, M/s.Sharekhan Ltd. and the impugned transaction of sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. was carried out through this renowned share broker; vi) Shares of Monotype India Ltd. were sold in various lots during the year with the sale prices fluctuating from Rs.36 to Rs.17. 9. In this regard our attention was drawn to reply filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings dated 15.2.2022 which was placed before us at PB Page No.22 to 25, making the following submissions and filling necessary documentary evidences as under: “2. In response to the financial transaction mentioned in the Return of Income we would like to state as under. a. We had shown the consolidated capital gain entry in the Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 for the whole financial year. b. We are having trading account with Prominent Broker viz. Sharekhan Ltd since long time wherein we do the purchase and sales transactions of all the shares regularly and keep the Handy Records in excel wherein we regularly update the purchase and sale entries. The same had happened during the current financial year also. c. Further I am attaching herewith the copies of Bank statements, Contract notes, and purchase note related to the transactions of Monotype ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 5 India Ltd ( earlier known as Gateway distributors Ltd) where it is clearly reflected that the purchase transaction have been carried out Properly and payment has been made by cheque and sales transactions have been carried through recognised stock exchanges. (Details as per Annexure 2) 3. We are attaching herewith the capital gain computation for the A.Y. 2017- 18 for your reference. (Details as per Annexure 3) In view of the above, I urge and state that, the amount which you are referring in to your notice ie. Rs.59,93,278/- is not the Income which is escaped from Assessment and it is already covered in the computation sheet.” 10. Our attention was drawn to PB Page No.26 to 51 being the evidences filed along with the reply filed to the AO as above, containing the contract note-cum-bill of M/s.Sharekhan for sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. from page no.26 to 47. • The bill of Bholebaba Suppliers P.Ltd. for purchase of shares of Monotype India Ltd. (earlier known as Gateway Distributors Ltd.) dated 31.1.2011 for purchase of 3,00,000 shares for Re.1/- each. • Account of the assessee with broker Sharekhan Ltd, engaged by the assessee for the impugned year, revealing dealing in shares of various companies scrip placed pate PB Page no.49 to 51. • Our attention was also drawn to PB Page No.52 containing client-wise, scrip-wise detailed report of scrip traded in by the assessee during the year issued by the broker Sharekhan Ltd. for the period 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2017 reflecting different scrips traded by them, on behalf of the assessee during the year. Thus, pointing out that the impugned scrip of Monotype India Ltd. was not the only scrip which has been dealt by the assessee. • At page no.53 was placed a scrip wise detailed report of Sharekhan Ltd. revealing that the scrip of Monotype India Ltd. was sold by the assessee in different lots from August, 2016 to ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 6 April, 2017 with price ranging from Rs.36.20 per share to Rs.17.25 per share. The shares initially being sold at the higher price and later on decreasing in its value to Rs.17.25 per share. 12. Referring to the above, it was the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us that it was amply demonstrated to the Revenue authorities that the shares of Monotype India Ltd. were genuinely purchased in 2011 and sold after five to six years in the impugned years through reputed/renowned brokers and shares were sold at varying rates and not at one fixed rate, thus, ruling out any assumption of sale of shares being pre-mediated transactions considering the huge gap of five to six years in the purchase and sale of shares, and also considering the varied rates at which shares were sold. 13. Our attention was also drawn to another reply filed by the assessee to the AO against show cause notice issued to the assessee making submissions to the above effect. The reply dated 23.3.2022 was filed before us in PB page no.80 to 86. Our attention was drawn to the submissions made therein as under (page no.80 to 83): “This is in reference to the above captioned Notice where we have been required to furnish its reply that why the addition should not be made of Rs.59,93,278/-to the total income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on our wrong claim of exemption of long-term capital gains on the sale of shares of a listed company M/s Monotype India Ltd ( earlier known as Gateway distributors Ltd, now amalgamated vide Hon’ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated 9th December, 2014). In this regard it is respectfully submitted that during the FY 2016-17 corresponding to the AY 2017-18, presently under consideration, we had earned Net Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.30,41,765 as per Income tax Return filed where Shares of M/s Monotype India Ltd was sold for Rs.59,93,278/- (before deductions of Expenses and Tax), duly listed on a recognised stock exchange. The copy of Computation of Capital Gain and Computation of Income was already submitted to your honour in our earlier reply dated 15.02.2022. ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 7 We had made the payments for the purchase of the equity shares of through proper and authenticated banking channels, and had sold the said shares on recognised stock exchange through Registered and Reputed Authorised broker viz. Sharekhan Ltd, after a period of approx. 5 Years after payment of the applicable Securities Transaction Tax (STT), and had thereby earned the completely genuine and authentic Long Term Capital Gains on such shares, which as per provisions of section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, were to be considered as exempt income. In order to establish the authenticity and genuineness of the said Long-Term Capital Gains on sale of M/s Monotype India Ltd Shares of Rs.56,67,676/-, it is respectfully submitted as under: • That we had bought the shares and made payment towards purchase of shares via Bank amounting to Rs.3,00,000 on 19-2-2011. • The copy of the corresponding entry in the bank statement was in our earlier reply filed dated 15.02.2022 • We had sold these shares on various dates in A.Y. 2017-18 From August 2016 to March 2017, on stock exchange, through the SEBI registered stock broker M/s Sharekhan Ltd. • The shares were sold through a recognised and SEBI registered stock broker and corresponding broker bills, contract notes and statement of sale of shares were submitted in our earlier reply dated 15.02.2022. • All the payments towards sale consideration are received through account payee cheques/RTGS and duly reflected in our bank account and copies of corresponding bank statements were submitted in our earlier reply dated 15.02.2022. • STT was duly charged by the share broker which is reflected in the bills received from the broker and copies of the same were submitted in our earlier reply dated 15.02.2022. • As per mechanism and working of stock exchange either seller places bid for sale of shares giving number of shares to be sold and the rate at which the shares are to be sold. Purchasers also places bid for purchase of shares giving number of shares to be purchased and the rate at which he is ready to purchase the shares. When the prices of the seller and the purchaser matches the transaction is confirmed by the system of the stock exchange. Purchaser and seller do not know each other. • After completion of the transaction as stated above purchase price is debited to the share broker of the purchaser which in turn recovers the same from the purchaser after adding the STT and other charges. Likewise, sale consideration of shares is credited to the account of the broker of the seller of shares which in turn credits the same to the account of the seller after deducting STT and other charges. • It may be seen from the above that the purchaser and seller are not in a position to know each other. Any person having shares of a company can sell ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 8 those shares and any person interested in purchase of shares can purchase the shares at the rate at which bids of sale is floating in the system. No human intervention is possible in the whole exercise of purchase/sale of shares as stated above. • We are genuine and regular investor and have sold the shares through the mechanism of a recognised stock exchange. There is no evidence that the purchaser was related to us or even in known to us. Therefore, from the above stated factual propositions, it is crystal clear and duly evident that: 1. All the above stated transactions of purchase and sale of equity shares of M/s Monotype India Ltd. has been fully and duly accounted for in our Books of Account and ITR filed, and all the transactions are fully and duly reflected in our bank statements. 2. All the said share transactions have been done through recognised Stock Broker, duly registered with SEBI. The copies of the Broker Contract Notes and Statement of Purchase & Sale of Shares, Settlement Accounts with the Brokers, containing complete details in relation to each sale & purchase transaction of shares as above, viz. contract note No., quantity, scrip name, price per unit, scrip-wise transactions, date of transactions, amounts of sale & purchase, holding etc. are being duly produced and placed on record, before the Id. assessing authority. 3. All the said transactions of purchase and sale of shares have been executed through recognised stock exchange, after payment of applicable Securities Transaction Tax (STT). 4. Nothing at all, had been brought and placed on record, by the Ld. AO, to show any nexus, whatsoever, between the us and the alleged accommodation entry operators. 5. In the entire purported statement of one alleged entry operator, no-s where, the said person had admitted that he had any connection or nexus, with us or more specifically, he had provided any accommodation entries to us. Therefore, there is no lawful basis, whatsoever, to consider the said genuine and authentic Long-Term Capital Gain income of us, as a sham or bogus transaction and the statutory onus, as casted upon us, by numerous binding judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble ITATs and High Courts, regarding the establishment of authenticity and genuineness of the said share transactions and the resultant long-term capital gain, had been fully and completely reflected in statement of Income. It is respectfully submitted that a mere presumption on the basis of conjectures, surmises and premises that in the guise of long-term capital gain income, assessee's own unaccounted income/on-money, had been routed in its books of account, and without bringing on record any corroborating material or evidence, to substantiate the source and generation of 'on-money' ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 9 by the assessee, is in contravention of the well settled and established position of Law. The mere presumption that since the assessee had earned long term capital gain, which is exempt as per law, therefore, the assessee must have earned some on-money/unaccounted income, is not at all in conformity with the established legal jurisprudence in this regard. 14. Our attention was also drawn to the copy of DEMAT account of the assessee reflecting the transaction of purchase of shares of Monotype India Ltd., (then known Gateway Distributors Pvt.Ltd.) on 21.6.2011 placed at page 91 of the PB and to the entry of sale of said shares in DEMAT account, copy of which was placed at PB Page no.102 and 103. 15. Thereafter, our attention was drawn to the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) and it was pointed out therefrom that except for some investigation report available with the Revenue purportedly revealing the assessee to be beneficiary of the accommodation entry provided by Shri Naresh Jain and associates, no other material was either placed on record nor relied upon by the Revenue for finding the assessee to be beneficiary of the accommodation entry by way of selling scrips of Monotype India Ltd. It was stated therefore that the entire case of the Revenue, treating the transaction of sale of shares of M/s Monotype India Ltd. as pre-mediated bogus transaction was built on mere presumptions and assumptions. Our attention was drawn to page no.24 of the CIT(A)’s order at para 7.14 containing the finding of the ld.CIT(A), upholding the assessment order, making the impugned addition on account of alleged penny stock to be justified as under: “7.14 The action of AO in making additions u/s 68 of the Act and disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s.10(38) is fully justified in view of the following facts - ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 10 a) In the trading of shares of M/s.Monotype India Ltd., the Appellant made unusual/astronomical profit which is highly unusual. b) Net worth of this company is negligible as per the financials but share price was rigged to a multiple level. c) It is a premeditated arrangement made by Naresh Jain and associates to use this penny stock to bring unaccounted money of beneficiaries to the books of accounts of beneficiaries in form of exempt income to evade tax. d) Transactions undertaken are not bonafide. Shares of M/s Monotype India Ltd are devoid of any commercial value. Transactions are premeditated and structural ones. e) Appellant failed to discharge the onus cast on him to prove the unusual rise in price of share of M/s. Monotype India Ltd is linked to market factors and commercial principles. f) These artificially structured transactions were entered into with sole purpose of evading tax. g) Artificial gains are created to evade taxes. h) It is a preconceived scheme to procure bogus LTCG in share transactions of this scrip which is not supported by market factors. i) Net worth of this company is negligible but its share price is artificially rigged. j) Operator, Brokers and Exit providers made an arrangement of routing cash to obtain bogus LTCG.” 16. Referring to the above, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the finding of the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has earned astronomical profit on the sale of said shares which was unusually higher, the net worth of the company to which the shares related being negligible, the share prices were rigged, that it was a pre-mediated adjustment made by the Naresh Jain and Associates to bring unaccounted money in the books of the beneficiary; that the transaction undertaken are devoid of any commercial value or consequences, was all without any basis at all; that there was no fact brought on record by the Revenue authorities to support this finding except for the investigation report of the Department, contents of ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 11 which were not shared with the assessee. It was also contended that after the assessee had filed documentary evidences proving the genuineness of the transactions no case was made out by the Revenue to show that the assessee’s mode of carrying out the transactions of purchase and sale of scrips of Monotype India Ltd. was in accordance with/ fitted into the modus operandi adopted by the accommodation entry providers. He pointed out that, in fact, the orders of the authority below contained no whisper of modus operandi adopted by the alleged accommodation entry providers. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended therefore that the finding of the authorities below that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus of proving genuineness of the transaction was highly unjustified and addition made to the income of the assessee of the consideration received on the sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. amounting to Rs.59 lakhs needed to be deleted. 17. The ld.DR, on the other hand, contended that it was an admitted fact that the assessee sold shares of Monotype India Ltd. which the investigation wing of the Department had found to be a mere penny stock; that all the documents filed by the assessee only proved the transaction having taken place, but did not prove genuineness of the transaction. The ld.DR submitted that the fact that Shri Naresh Jain, the accommodation entry provider, had admitted to having provided accommodation entries, nails the case against the assessee. He also referred to SEBI action conducted on Bholebaba Suppliers P.Ltd. through whom the assessee had purchased the said shares of the impugned company. The ld.DR contended that the impugned share transaction was found to be bogus not only by the Income Tax Department, but also by the SEBI; that the assessee had not ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 12 explained, why it had invested in this scrip despite no financials supporting the sale price. 18. To this, the ld.counsel for the assessee countered by stating that the contention of the ld.DR regarding SEBI action taken was based on his own personal knowledge, which found no mention in the order of the authorities below and therefore, no credence could be given to this contention of the ld.DR. 19. Having heard contentions of both the parties, and having gone through all the documents referred to before us, we find merit in the contention of the ld.counsel of the assessee that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving genuineness of the transaction and the Department has failed to make out a case of the transaction being bogus. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had submitted all documents pertaining to the purchase and sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. The ld.DR, in fact, has accepted this fact that the assesse had submitted all purchases and sale bills, contract-notes of the brokers, along with ledger account of the assessee in the books of the broker, the DEMAT account of the assessee, wherein the purchase and sale of these scrips were recorded, as also, the fact of transaction being carried out through banking channels, both of purchase and sales. The fact that the shares of Monotype India Ltd. were purchased in 2011 and sold after a gap of five to six years in 2016 and 2017 is also not disputed. Also, not disputed is the fact that the assessee sold scrips of Monotype India Ltd.not in a single transaction at a single price, but in different lots at varying share prices ranging between Rs.36 to 17/- per shares from ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 13 August, 2016 to March, 2017; that it was not a single transaction of sale of shares by the assessee during the year. 20. All the above facts are not disputed by the Revenue. Even, the ld.DR admits to the above facts, but contended that it only demonstrates the undertaking of the impugned transactions and did not prove the genuineness of the same. 21. We are not in agreement with the contentions of the ld.DR, because the assessee having demonstrated to have carried out the transaction as admitted by the ld.DR, the Revenue in its part has failed to point out why the transaction was not genuine. As is evident from the order of the authorities below, the entire case of the Revenue rests on merely the report of the investigation carried out by the Department on Naresh Jain and his associates. Neither the details of the report are part of the orders, nor appear to have been shared with the assessee. There is no mention of the manner in which Naresh Jain and his associates carried out/provided accommodation entries to the beneficiaries in the impugned orders, nor there is any finding as to how the assessee’s case, therefore, fitted the bill of the modus operandi of Shri Naresh Jain. The Revenue authorities, AO/Ld.CIT(A) have merely stated that the assessee has failed to justify unusually higher price of the sale of shares without pointing out as to why the share price was “unusually high”. Nothing in this regard has been brought out on record. The Revenue authorities have stated the financials of the scrip traded in by the assessee to be low, but no facts and records revealing the said facts have been brought on record. Clearly therefore there is no basis to support the case of the Revenue of the impugned transaction of sale of shares of M/s Monotype India Ltd. By the assessee during the year being bogus. We agree therefore ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 14 with the ld.counsel for the assessee that the finding of the ld.CIT(A) to the effect that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions, is not based on hard-core evidences or facts, but merely on presumptions, and not backed by any evidences. The assessee on the contrary, we find, has sufficiently discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of the impugned transactions. The assessee had demonstrated the transactions to have been taken place, which even the ld.DR agreed to. The assessee also demonstrated a gap of five to six years in the purchase and sale of shares with the shares being sold at varying rates. We agree with the ld.dcounsel for the assessee that there could not be any pre- mediated transaction presumed to have taken place in such a long time gap of five to six years, that too at varying prices. It was the duty and onus of the Revenue to prove how the impugned transaction was pre-mediated. Merely stating and reiterating that it was a pre- mediated transaction is not sufficient. The said fact has to be demonstrated with evidences, which the Revenue has miserably failed in the present case, relying only on the investigation report, the contents of which have also not been brought on record. Not to be missed is also the fact, demonstrated by the assessee, that the scrips so dealt with was de-mated and dealt through a prominent broker, Sharekhan Ltd. and was not the only scrip the assessee has traded in, but there were numerous other scrips in which the assessee traded during the year. 22. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee has sufficiently discharged its onus of proving genuineness of the transaction of sale of scrip of Monotype India Ltd. and finding of the ld.CIT(A) that the transaction was mere accommodation entry, is not justified and not sustainable. ITA No.519/Ahd/2023 15 The addition, therefore, made of the entire consideration received by the assesse from sale of scrip of Monotype India Ltd. amounting to Rs.59,93,278/-, holding the same to be penny stock transaction, is directed to be deleted. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 4 th September, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 04/09/2024