IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year 2012-2013)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata, 5th Floor, Room No. 506, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata – 700107 ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs.

Dharmendra Singh, FE-330, Salt Lake City, Bidhan Nagar IB Market, North 24 PGNS - 700016 ................................ Respondent [PAN: AIRPS7029Q]

Appearances by:

Assessee represented by : P.K. Singh, AR Department represented by : Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 01.09.2025

O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1. In this case, there is a delay of 58 days which has been requested to be condoned as under by the Revenue:

“Dates Events/Reasons

06.03.2024 CIT(A) order received to the office of the Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata

08.03.2024 Requisition of Appeal Scrutiny Report (ASR) called from the DCIT (Hqrs), Central-2, Kolkata

06.05.2024 Appeal Scrutiny Report (ASR) sent to the office of the Pr. CIT, Central-2, Kolkata

25.06.2024 Approval for filing 2nd appeal u/s 253 before the Hon’ble ITAT received from the Office of the Pr. CIT, Central-2, Kolkata

26.06.2024 Filed 2nd Appeal u/s 253 before the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata “As the limitation to file appeal under section 253 expires on 06.05.2024, there caused a delay in filing of this appeal in 51 days. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice.

Verification I, the undersigned, do hereby verify on solemn affirmation in Kolkata that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed.”

1.1 Considering the reasons given, we hereby condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication.

2. This appeal arises from order dated 29.02.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 21.10.2012, declaring total income at Rs.44,49,200/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, 1961. Thereafter, an information was received from Investigation Wing, Kolkata regarding a Survey action conducted on an entry operator. Further, after examining the data and evidence on records, this case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019. In response to the notice from AO the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019. However, the assessee did not comply with the terms of the said notices. Later, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act on 06.12.2019, determining a total income of Rs.51,00,200/-. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the A.O. had made one addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 6,51,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.

2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has given the following brief findings on the basis of which relief has been given to the assessee.

“5.1.1 I have perused the assessment order as well as the submission of the assessee. Reliance is placed on PCIT vs. Indravadhan Jain (HUF) Bombay High Court, Appeal No. 454 of 2018 in which the Hon'ble High Court stated that "no addition on account of sale of penny stock, if no direct involvement of the assessee". In the present case, the assessee filed his DEMAT account which proves that the transactions were happened through banking channels. Further, it cannot be proved that the direct involvement of the assessee. Hence, this ground of assessee is allowed. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition.”

2.2 The Revenue is aggrieved with this and has approached the ITAT with the following revised grounds:

“1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s.68 on account of Bogus LTCG derived on sale of penny stock [M/s