| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1347/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rakesh Mulchand Kothari Income Tax Officer, Wd-24(2)(5), A-28, Kamgar Nagar Vs Mumbai Kurla (East)

Mumbai - 400024 [PAN: AADPK9088M]

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

Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A/R Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-51, Mumbai [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] dated

31/12/2024 pertaining to AY 2014-15.

2. Grievance of the assessee reads as under:-

“The appellant prefers an appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai dated 31/12/2024 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, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice issued u/s 148, since such notice u/s.148 dated 09/09/2016 was issued before the expiry of due date of issuance of notice u/s.143(2) [due on 30/09/2016], thereby consequential reassessment order u/s.147 is bad in law; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice issued u/s.148, issued in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of mind and without having reason to believe of alleged escapement of income;

3.0 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.3,24,65,244/-;

4.0 The Ld. CIT(A), before confirming the addition of sale consideration of listed shares of Rs.3,24,65,244/-, 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 the AO and CIT(A);

b) The period of holding of listed shares in 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 3d persons recorded at back of the appellant, without allowing an opportunity of cross examination is incorrect.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. Vide Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as bad in law resulting into the consequential re-assessment order framed u/s 147 of the Act as bad in law.

4. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Judicial decisions relied upon carefully perused.

5. The quarrel revolves around the notice dated 09/09/2016 issued u/s 148 of the Act by which the AO proposed to assess/re-assess the income/loss for the impugned assessment year.

6. The assessee filed its return of income on 22/03/2016 and the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could have been issued by 30/09/2016. But before expiry of the period of limitation, for issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act the AO issued not