IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1301/Ahd/2024 आयकर अपील सं./

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

(िनधार(cid:91) ण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ(cid:568) ओर से /Appellant by :

Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, AR Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) क(cid:551) ओर से/Respondent by :

Date of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 01/01/2026

O R D E R

PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 10.05.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information received by the AO, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2018. The AO has recorded in the assessment order that on the basis of information disseminated through ITBA portal, the assessee had sold shares of scrip M/s. Splash Media Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.1,29,23,931/-. In the course of assessment, the AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee in respect of this sale transaction and LTCG of Rs.1,04,25,763/- derived thereon was held as accommodation entry and added to the income. Further, addition of Rs.5,21,288/- on account of commission paid in this transaction was also added. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.12.2018 at total income of Rs.1,13,49,471/-.

3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

4. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

“1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.

2. The reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law as same has been done for verification purpose only for making fishing and roving inquiries.

3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,04,25,763/-by treating long term capital gain as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act ignoring submission &

documentary evidence submitted by the appellant.

4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 5,21,288/- of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act without any tangible evidence.

5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition ignoring fact that the material relied on by AO was not provided and thus violated the principle of natural justice.

6. Both lower authorities erred in law and on facts in passing orders without providing statements of the persons relied on and consequential cross examination.

7. Ld. NFAC upholding erred in invocation of section 115BBE of the Act.

8. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are unjustified.

9. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A is unjustified.”

5. Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the case was reopened u/s.148 of the Act to examine the transaction of the assessee in respect of purchase and sale of immovable property and also to examine the transaction (sale/purchase) in scrips amounting to Rs. 72,73,743/-. He explained