ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

The instant two appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Years (in short ‘AY’) 2013-14 & 2014-15 are directed against separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld.

‘CIT(A)’] dated 24.08.2023.

1.1. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are common and pertain to the same assessee, these are heard together and are disposed off by way of this common order for the sake convenience and brevity.

1.2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that assessee being an individual filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 31.03.2014 at a total income of Rs. 38,64,475/- and for the AY 2014-15 on 23.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 24,71,830/-. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued for trading in shares of Indian Infotech & Software Ltd. during the year which has been identified as a bogus company indulging in giving long-term capital gain/short-term capital loss to its beneficiaries and the transaction was disclosed in his return of income. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. ’AO’) after considering the submission of the assessee passed assessment order with an addition of Rs. 57,50,000/- in the AY 2013-14 and for the AY 2014-15 added to the income at Rs. 44,47,811/-. The assessee has preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) wherein also appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on merit.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeals have been preferred.

1.3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 57,50,000/- and Rs. 44,47,811/- ignoring the documents and the facts of the case of the assessee, that case of the assessee is completely distinguishable from the facts of the case of Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta). Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the case of the assessee is totally different from the facts of the case of Swati Bajaj (supra) to the extent that the scrip i.e. M/s. India Infotech and Software Ltd. has been categorically stated not to be a shell company by SEBI. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed the order of SEBI, Mumbai passed in favour of M/s. India Infotech and Software Ltd. on 04.01.2023. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the scrip i.e. M/s. India Infotech and Software Ltd. is a listed company as on date with BSE shares. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the new article dated 19.11.2022 published on ‘livemint.com’. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that purchase and sale transaction of the shares are made through broker Kotak Securities Ltd. duly registered with the Stock Exchange of India and the shares were received by the appellant assessee in his Demat account and also delivered through Demat account maintained with the depositor. Further submission of ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is a genuine and regular investor and he has sold the shares through the mechanism of the recognized stock exchange. The ld. Counsel for the assessee cited following decisions:

i) PCIT vs. Sangitaben Jagdishkumar Shah reported in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat).

ii) Gateway Financial Services Ltd. & Others vs. ACIT in ITA No. 982-

984/KOL/2018 order dated 14.07.2023.

1.4. The ld. D/R supports the impugned order of ld. CIT(A).

2. After hearing the rival submissions of the Counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the records and find that the appellant made purchases and sales of the shares through SEBI registered share broker being member of the recognized stock exchange. The shares are duly reflected in the transaction of the share statement of the assessee and payment & receipt of the consideration of the share value are reflected in the bank account of the appellant ass