vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk

0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1572/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 GCK Stock Private Limited cuke The ITO, 135, Everest Vihar, T.N. Mishra Marg, Vs. Ward-1(4), Shyam Nagar Brijlal Pura, Jaipur. Jaipur.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACA5560C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Bhupendra Shaha, C.A.

jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 24/02/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi dated 27.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in passing order u/s 148A[d] r w s 148 r w s 144B a) Mechanically b) Even though it is time barred c) Even though JAO reopened the same instead of FAO d) Without making any inquiry e) Without granting hearing f) Only on the basis of information from Investigation Wing g) Without furnishing copy of approval granted by Pr. CCIT h) Template based order i) Even though it is change of opinion j) Even though no asset exceeding Rs 50 lacs is found as income is not in form asset k) that objections raised by the appellant were exhaustive and self-sufficient but same were not disposed of properly by the FAO by passing a speaking order

2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred adding Rs

4,96,87,796/-

a) On the basis of suspicion and presumption b) Based on third party statements c) Without any proof of cash trail d) By wrongly correlating general data of SEBI with the Appellant e) by making only guesswork & overlooking documents and by relying upon cases not applicable in this case.

f) By not offering the opportunity to cross-examine the brokers and other persons whose statements were never furnished for rebuttal g) Without confronting result of notices u/s 133(6) or without issuing summons u/s 131 h) By ignoring the fact that transaction is by cheque

3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234 and initiating penalty under section 271[1][c]

4) In the facts and the circumstances of law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in dismissing appeal By totally overlooking judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal by SC and not deciding the issue of time barred case of the Appellant .”

3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee e-filed ITR on 30.09.2015 vide Ack. No. 836109781300915 disclosing total income of Rs. 3,77,390/- from business and other sources. The firm is a trader in securities market. There was credible information with the Department that the assessee was engaged in reversal trades in illiquid Stock Options leading to pre-meditated loss of Rs. 4,96,87,796/-. It was gathered from the information that the assessee has executed many non-genuine trades in unique contracts Hence the case was reopened after following the due proceedings u/s 148A and the case was taken up for complete scrutiny.

3.1 The assessee filed an objection to reopening u/s 148 on 29.06.2022 and 06.07.2022. As can be seen from the Paper Book Page No. 182-190 several objections were raised by the assessee and at Paper Book Page No. 190 a request was made to grant personal hearing before passing order u/s. 148A(d). Moreover vide reply dated 06.07.2022 several objections were raised by the assessee against reopening initiated by the JAO (Paper Book Page No. 212). However the same were rejected by the AO summarily