IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2280/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(2), Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai 432, Lamington Road, Shigney Building, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai – 400004 (PAN : AADHM4374A)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri Mitesh Mehta, CA Revenue : Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061827856(1), dated 01.03.2024, passed against the assessment order by Assessing Officer, Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 28.12.2017, for Assessment Year 2015-

16.

2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 99,18,288/ which is taxable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed in appreciating the fact that the company, M/s GCM Securities Limited and the brokers/other entities were involved in price manipulation in the scrip thereby confirming the investigation of the department that the scrip is utilized by entry operators for providing accommodation entries under the garb of LTCG by manipulating/rigging up the share price?"

3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was huge price jump in the script of M/s GCM Securities Limited. without any economic rationale which was an arrangement for converting the unaccounted income of the beneficiaries into legitimate income under the garb of exempt LTCG without paying any taxes and assessee was one such beneficiary?"

4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the direct and circumstantial evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee had indulged in manipulation of the share prices of M/s GCM Securities Limited with a view to record fictitious Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 99,18,288/ claiming these as exempt from taxation?"

5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Long-Term Capital Gains of Rs. 99,18,288/ overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gains and claim bogus exemption?"

6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the direct and circumstantial evidences while passing the order, whereas in view of the decisions in Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where under it was held that the Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidence before it by applying the test of human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessing Officer?"

7. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Long-Term Capital Gains of Rs. 99,18,288/- without considering the fact that Assessing Office relying on the report of Investigation wing which is premier investigation authority of Income tax department, and the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the price hike and also has to prove that the price of the share of M/s GCM Securities Limited was not manipulated. Reliance is placed on Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj (I.A. No.GA/2/2022 in ITAT N