IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2015-2016)

Rakesh Mulchand Kothari A-28, Kamgar Nagar, S.G.Barve Marg, Kurla (East) Mumbai – 400024. Maharashtra.

[PAN: AADPK9088M] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For the Respondent/Department : Smt. Mamta Nair Date Conclusion of hearing : 06.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 28.02.2025

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 10/12/2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 51, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.

CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 issued in mechanical manner in absence of tangible material and without having reason is believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;

2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.

CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 dated 12/09/2016, though issued before due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(4) viz. 31/03/2017, thereby the notice u/s. 148 and consequential reassessment order passed u/s.147 is bad in law;

3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148, though valid sanction u/s 151 not been obtained from correct approving authority;

4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.

CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of sale consideration of STT paid listed shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd of Rs.5, 17,04,286/-;

5.0 The Ld. CIT(A), before confirming the addition of sale consideration of listed shares of Rs.5,17,04,286/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being;

a) The correctness of exhaustive documentary evidences such as Contract-cum-bills, D-mat statements, bank statements, bhav copy, confirmation of stock broker, share application, letter of allotment and other documents filed on record had not been disputed by AO and CIT(A);

b) The period of holding of listed shares in the appellant's D-mat account exceeds 12 months and such shares had been sold on floor of Bombay stock exchange at prevailing market price;

c) The substantial increase in price of shares cannot be a sole reason to treat the bonafide transactions as non-genuine;

d) The appellant, in statement u/s.131, had confirmed the transactions alongwith the documentary evidences;

e) The appellant is not related to any directors/promoters and exit providers and general statements of 3rd persons recorded at back of the appellant, without allowing an opportunity of cross examination is incorrect.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that based upon information received from the Director General of Income Tax (investigation), Kolkata with respect to the bogus claim made by the Assessee is respect of purchase/sale of shares,reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee under Section 147 of the Act and notice, dated 12/09/2016, was issued under Section 148 of the Act after recording the reasons. In response to the said notice, the Assessee filed return of income on 19/09/2016 and communicated to the Assessing Officer vide letter, dated 23/09/2016, that the same be treated as a return filed in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Assessee requested for the reasons, which wer