Sanganer, Tonk Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la@thvkbZvkj la@PAN/GIR No.: AABHJ 3476 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Tanuj Agarwal, Adv jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITDR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 22/07/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11/09/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. Addl. CIT(A), Thane dated 30042024 for the assessment year 201112 raising following grounds of appeal. ''1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining an addition of Rs.1,08,140/ in respect of alleged bogus long term capital gains from sale of shares of Quest Financial Service Ltd. thereby denying exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA NO. 859/JP/2024 SHRI NATHU LAL JAIN HUF VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessment order passed in consequent thereof are illegal and without jurisdiction. 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a HUF and the return under Section 139 (1) of the Act was filed thereby declaring income which includes STCH and LTCG on shares. The department on the basis of information that the appellant had transacted in the shares of Quest Financial Limited amounting to Rs.1.28,800/ which was a penny stock and believing that Appellant had brought his unaccounted money in the books of account in the shape of amount received on sale and purchase of shares of this Penny stock. Accordingly assessment was reopened and after providing opportunity of hearing assessment order was passed thereby making additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by holding appellant to be beneficiary of Bogus LTCG. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) but remained unsuccessful. 2.3 Against this order of ld. CIT(A), the Appellant has filed the present appeal before me on the grounds mentioned here in above. 2.4 The Ground No. 1 by the appellant relates to challenging the order of ld. CIT (A) in sustaining the additions of Rs.1,08,140/ under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3 ITA NO. 859/JP/2024 SHRI NATHU LAL JAIN HUF VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2.5 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same arguments as was raised by him before the revenue authorities and also relied upon his written submissions which is reproduced as under: ''Appellant's Humble Submissions it is humbly submitted that the both the lower authorities grossly earned in appreciating the facts of the case as well as the provisions of law. The appellant earned long term capital gains u/s 10(38) from 2000 equity shares of Quest Financial Service amounting to Rs. 1,08,138/ which was wrongly treated as bogus by the AO and wrongly confirmed by the ld CIT (Appeals) by ignoring the following material facts 1. Material evidence ignored: Material evidences Janored: All the material evidences relating to the shares transactions of Quest Financial Services Ltd viz share contract notes of registered broker through recognized stock exchanges where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid, delivery slips of Stock Holding Corporation of India, Demat Statement issued by Depository Participants, payments/receipts through banking channels etc. were ignored by the lower authorities. Copy of the return of income as well as the r