IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4417/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12)

Praksh Pushparaj Golcha, v/s. Assistant Commissioner of

6A, Shivkrupa H Wing, Income Tax– 24(3), बनाम Old Nagardas Road, M/o Finance, Income Tax Andheri(W), Department, National Faceless Mumbai-400 069, Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABPG9404H ..

Appellant/ Respondent/

अपीलार्थी प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Mr.Ruturaj H. Gurjar,AR Respondent by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

16.10.2023is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 29.12.2018 as passed by the ACIT/DCIT – Circle-24(3), Mumbai for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. THAT the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in confirming the error of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

2. THAT the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in passing the order u/s 250 to confirming the error of the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

3. THAT the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in accepting the addition of Rs 28,03,430/- under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer.

4. THAT the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in accepting the addition of Rs. 84,103/- u/s. 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual who filed the Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 32,41,120/- and the assessment order was u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed making addition of Rs28,03,430/- in respect of Long Term Capital Gains disclosed by the assessee pertaining to the alleged penny stock of Global Capital Markets Limited, sold by the assessee during the year as the ld.AO treated the transaction as pre-arranged method employed to evade tax. Further addition of Rs 84,103/- was made u/s 69C of the Act, being alleged commission paid at the rate of 3% of sale consideration of Rs

28,03,430/-. The action of the AO is basically based on certain report of the Investigation wing, Kolkata on a rampant nexus of various players including brokers, exchanges, taxpayers, exit providers etc. in providing bogus entries of capital gains and business loss for reducing their tax liabilities. The ld.CIT(A) upheld both the additions and dismissed appeal of the assessee on merit as also on the question of reassessment.

4. Before us, the ld.DR has supported the orders of authorities below while the ld.AR has vehemently argued against the action of the ld.CIT(A) in dismissing its appeal. It is claimed that the share transaction was genuine in support of which the assessee furnished various details which were not taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. He submitted that the transactions in question were made through stock exchange market purchases and not through preferential allotments. The details of purchases had been submitted during the assessment proceedings. Sales and purchase of transactions were done through recognized stock exchange where the buyer and seller do not know each other and they transact through a broker on the Stock Exchange.T