IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hybrid Hearing)

ITO, Vs. Shardaben Gordhanbhai Asodaria, Ward – 3(3)(1), 8, Raghuvir Bungalow City Light Surat Road, Parle Point, Surat - 395007 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABVPA6713E (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No.1295/SRT/2024 (AY 2015-16)

ITO, Vs. Hitesh B. Ponkia, Ward – 2(3)(1), 21, Milan Bungalows, Opposite Surat Valentine Cinema, Dumas Road, Surat - 395001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADHH8389A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Ravinder Sindhu, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Manish J. Shah, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These two appeals by revenue emanate from the separate orders dated

06.06.2024 and 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for assessment year (AY) 2015-16. With consent of both the parties, these appeals were heard and clubbed together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.793/SRT/2025 for AY 2015-16 is taken as ‘lead’ case.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in ITA No.793/SRT/2025 are as follows:

“(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and m low the Ld CIT has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs 4,63,05,545/- by the AO on account of cash credit u/s 69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company?

(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT has erred in ignoring the facts brought on record establishing manipulation of share prices of Ji Industries and Infrastructure Limited as the upward movement of share price was not at all justified by the economic fundamental of company during the period of transactions by the assessee?

(iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.4,63,05,545/- ignoring the fact that the stock prices of the company are manipulated to provide the bogus LTCG.

(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id CITIA) has erred in allowing the claim ignoring the judicial pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell Vs CTO wherein it was held that "Colourable devises cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious method it is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges".

(v) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the id CITA)

ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

(vi) It is therefore prayed that the order of Id. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

(vii) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in ITA No.1295/SRT/2025 are as under:

“(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs.87,86,293/- by the AO on account of undisclosed income in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company.

(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT