| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 809/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asha Viren Raj Income Tax Officer, Ward – Plot No. 7, XCZAR Building Vs 34(1)(1), Mumbai Flat No. 402, N.S. Road 1, Azad Nagar Society Juhu Scheme Villeparle (West) Mumbai - 400056 [PAN: AADPR9260J]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Shah, A/R Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated

30/10/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to AY 2012-13.

1.1. Appeal is time barred by limitation for 37 days. We have considered the reasons and are satisfied. Delay is condoned.

2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:-

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act though the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and full particulars were available before the AO. The learned AO has not pointed out any non-disclosure of full and true material facts which lead to reopening of the assessment. The reopening of the assessment is bad in law after the period of four years.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the fact that there were no sufficient tangible materials were available before AO to believe that income has actually escaped the assessment for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.

3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the submissions of the Appellant that Client Code Modification (CCM) was done by commodity broker suo moto and without the knowledge or instructions of the Appellant and there is no involvement of the appellant.

4. a) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in making addition of entire gross sale value of commodity transactions Rs. 1,09,73,250/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act without considering the investment made of Rs. 1,07,43,750/- and having declared profit of Rs.2,29,500/-.

b) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the declared profit of Rs.2,29,500/- having accepted, no further addition could have been made by the AO and wrongly accepted by the CIT(A).

c) The learned CIT(A) has wrongly observed that the appellant has not incorporated purchases and sales transactions as well as the differential value in the books of accounts though the full details were available before the AO as well as before CIT(A).

5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not giving the statements of the parties on which reliance is made and the cross examination of the said parties. The whole addition was based on information from the SFI Office without verification and proving the involvement of the appellant in Client Code Modification.

6. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO wrongly applied the provisions of Section 68 of the Act without verification of the ledger account of the appellant in respect of the transactions alleged to have been modified by CCM by the broker.

7. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above, the addition could not have been made of the gross sale value of the commodities. The learned CIT(A) ought to have restricted the profit element involved in the transactions which in any case the appellant had declared to the extent of Rs.2,29,500/-. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, substitute and / or cancel any of the g