आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एव ंश्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.997/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Income Tax Officer Vs. Stypack Private Limited Ward-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN :AACCS8673G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Cross Objection No.27/Hyd/2024 (Arising out of आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.997/Hyd/2024)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Stypack Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-3(1)

PAN :AACCS8673G Hyderabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Advocate Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Gurupreet Singh, Sr.DR Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 04.09.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

O R D E R

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07.08.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 21.03.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

2. Apart from that, the assessee company is before us as a cross-

objector on the following grounds:

(i) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in holding that the jurisdictional assessing officer is not empowered to issue notice u/s 148 and hence the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid.

(ii) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4,15,72,863.made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act by disallowing the exemption claimed in respect of long terms capital gains and by considering the same as unexplained money.

(iii) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid even on the ground that such notice was issued without approval from the authority as specified in S.151 of the Act, (iv) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) without providing the relevant information to the respondent is in violation of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid.

(v) Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the time of hearing

3. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information gathered from the Insight Portal and the order dated 28.04.2022 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, that the name of the assessee company, viz., Stypack Pvt. Ltd. (PAN : AACCS8673G), had surfaced as one of the beneficiaries in the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted u/s 132 of the Act on Shri Naresh Jain, an infamous accommodation entry provider and his syndicate members on 19.03.2019, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the A.O., followed by a notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 28.04.2022.

4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company, as per its annual summary information, had during the subject year carried out the following transactions:

(i) Purchase of equity shares of Rs.1,96,57,672/- on NSE during the year (ii) Sale of equity shares of Rs.5,62,81,476 on NSE and Rs.66,605/- on BSE totalling to Rs.5,63,48,081/-

(iii) Interest income of Rs.7,25,000/- from IDBI Bank and Rs.45,860/- from Cosmos Bank totalling to Rs.7,70,860/-

5. On perusal of the record, the AO observed that the assessee company had claimed to have earned long term cap