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

0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ dey's k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 1393/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma cuke Income Tax Officer, E-157, Road No. 11, VKI Area, Vs. Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS6643A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.A.

jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by :Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/04/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 24/06/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 23.09.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in reopening assessment under section

147 of the Act merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction.

2. That the ld. Assessing Officer is not justified making addition amounting to Rs.

15,95,000/- under section 69A of the Act as undisclosed income.

3. That the ld. Assessing officer erred in law in not complying with principles of natural justice. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer did not grant sufficient time to respond to show cause notice issued under section 144 of the Act.

4. That the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant incurred only short term capital loss, which was not even claimed while filing return of income. Consequently, no loss accrued to Revenue.

The appellant craves to add, amend, modify and delete any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 29.09.2013 for the assessment year 2013-14, declaring total income at Rs. 2,76,990/-. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 16.03.2020 to the appellant on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad that the appellant has claimed bogus long term capital gains (LTCG) of Rs. 15,95,000/- , which has not been found genuine and verifiable from the return of income on prima facie verification. In response to the notice under section 148 of the IT Act, the appellant e-filed return of income on 17.03.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 2,76,990/- for the AY 2013-14. Thereafter, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were issued on 23.09.2021 requiring the appellant to furnish documents in support of return of income filed. Subsequently, show cause notice under section 144 of the Act was issued on 28.09.2021 to furnish response by 29.09.2021. In response to the said notice, the assessee sought adjournment on

29.09.2021 but then filed response on 30.09.2021 which was not considered while passing order on 30.09.2021. From the assessment order, it was established that the appellant did not earn LTCG amounting to Rs. 15,95,000/-. The AO completed the assessment on 30.09.2021at a total income of Rs. 18,71,990/- by making addition of Rs. 15,95,000/- under section 69A as unexplained investment made in purchase of shares of ‘Safal Herbs Limited’. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above.

3. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. AR further submitted the ground-wise written submissions as under :-

“Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Di