आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण,राजकोट Ûयायपीठ,राजकोट।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.568/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16)

(Physical Hearing)

(Physical Hearing)

(Physical Hearing)

(Physical Hearing)

(Physical Hearing)

(Physical Hearing)

(Physical Hearing)

िनधा१ौरती की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Samir Jani, Ld. AR राज(cid:738) की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/01/2026 आदेश /ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2015-16, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 10.09.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2017.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1. The appellate order dated 10.09.2025 is bad & illegal and against the weight of equity and natural justice since an adjournment application dated 23.09.2025 was filed which has been ignored and appeal order has been passed by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC. The same is prayed for restoration.

2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in invoking provisions of section 45 (3) in case of transferee which is not permitted by statute, especially when the similar provisions are invoked in case of transferor on substantive basis. The addition of Rs. 43,41,79,329/- is prayed for deletion.

3. The Ld. CIT (appeals) has erred in taxing the difference between market value and book value of the shop being Rs. 2,95,09,518/- whereas the fact is the value credited to capital account of the proprietor is book value and no assessment is framed in the hands of proprietor. A substantive assessment is framed in the hands of transferee invoking provisions of section 45(3). The addition of Rs.2,95,09,518/-

is prayed for deletion.

4. The appellant reserves its rights to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds on or before the time of final hearing.

3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. Return of income, declaring an income of Rs.33,45,45,640/- was filed by the assessee, on 23.09.2015. The assessee derives income from the selling of the gold and gold ornaments. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, hence a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19.09.2016, which was duly served upon the assessee on 20.09.2016. The notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, cum questionnaire was issued to the assessee. In compliance thereto, the AR of assessee, appeared and filed written submissions. Books of accounts and relevant bills / vouchers etc, were produced, before the assessing officer. The assessee has claimed that M/s Radhika Jewellers, was proprietorship concern, up to 30.06.2014 and Shri. Ashok Kumar Zinzuwadia was the proprietor of the said concern. With effect from 01.07.2014, M/s. Radhika Jewellers, was converted into the partnership firm. Name of the partners of the said firm are as under:

the said firm are as under:

the said firm are as under:

the said firm are as under:

the said firm are as under:

the said firm are as under:

The assessing officer observed that the proprietor of M/s. Radhika Jewellers having share ratio only 24% and balance share ratio comes to 76% which belongs to other 9 partners of the firm. Each partner of firm having different share ratio of the profit in the said firm. The business of the erstwhile proprietorship was transferred to the newly incorporated partnership firm. Hence, assessing officer was of the view that the provisions related to capital gain was found to be applicable and