IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2459/Mum./2024 (Assessment Year : 2015–2016)

Income Tax Officer, Room No.854, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400051.

v/s Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain, B/31, 3^rd Floor Trimurti Park, Mamletdar Wadi Malad West, ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400064.

PAN- AAIPJ0476F CO No.286/Mum./2024 (Arising Out of ITA 2459/Mum./2024)

(Assessment Year : 2015–2016)

Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain, B/31, 3^rd Floor Trimurti Park, Mamletdar Wadi Malad West, ……………. Cross Objector Mumbai – 400064. (Original Respondent)

PAN- AAIPJ0476F v/s Income Tax Officer, Room No.854, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400051 (Original Appellant)

Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by : Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 01/01/2025 Date of Order – 06/03/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The present appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.03.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: –

“i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in overlooking the explicit finding of the directorate of Investigation, Kolkata that the share price of scrip M/s. JRI Industries and Infrastructure Ltd was manipulated for tax evasion and entry of entire sale proceeds was taken while incurring expenses in nature of commission."

"ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the entire sale proceeds which was credited in the books of account, on account of transaction in scrip M/s. JRI Industries and Infrastructure Ltd was manipulated for tax evasion and said transaction itself was not genuine and hence entire proceeds were needed to be brought to tax u/s.68 of the I.T. Act."

iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(S) has erred in treating the commission expenses as mere assumption ignoring the fact that the transactions in penny stock are shown to be very complex, as the meeting of minds of the "players" can never be established by direct evidence and therefore the surrounding circumstances were required to be taken note of in such transactions?”

3. While in its Cross Objection, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –

“The assessee prefers a Cross objection appeal against an order dated 12/03/2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi on following amongst other grounds each of which are without prejudice to any other:-

1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s.148 issued beyond 3 years from end of the assessment year are bad-in-law, since the sanction had not been obtained by current specified authority prescribed u/s. 151(ii) of the Act;

2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed u/s. 148A(d) and notice issued u/s.148 are bad-in-law, since had been issued in violation to Sec.151A by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and had not been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), thereby consequential reassessment order passed u/s. 147 is void-ab-initio.”

4. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground in its Cross Objection: -

“The assessee prefers an additional ground in the Cross Objection filed against the Order dated 12/03/2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi on following ground:-

1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issue