IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4218/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Devang Bhupendra Shah, v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai–

Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPS1211L ..

Appellant/ Respondent/

अपीलार्थी प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Rahul Kapadia,AR Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 18.12.2017 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order ignoring appellant's specific request for providing personal hearing opportunity through video conferencing.

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order, ignoring various submissions made by the appellant and ignoring various judicial judgments.

3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in passing the order, ignoring the fact that the appellant has not been provided by the Ld. Assessing officer, the reasons/ documents/ statements from the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), as alleged by the Ld. Assessing officer.

4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has not justified and has erred in fact and law, by passing the order considering submission of appellant dated 07.04.2022 and 19.04.2023 only and ignoring the submissions dated 17.01.2022, 02.06.2023, 25.08.2023, 08.09.2023, 11.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 and ignoring all facts and evidences made in those submissions.

5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,76,70,306/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, ignoring the various submissions, details, evidences, Judicial Judgments submitted by the appellant.

6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,30,109/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, ignoring the various submissions, details, evidences, Judicial Judgments submitted by the appellant.

7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon. CIT(A) is not justified and has erred in facts and in law in rejecting the Long term capital gain earned by the appellant of Rs. 3,76,70,306/- on sale of shares of Moryo Industries and making addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and ignoring the facts and evidences submitted with Ld. CIT(A) and with Ld. Assessing officer and relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 2011 in the case of SEBI Vs Rakhi Traders (P) Ltd (with Civil Appeal No.3174-3177 of 2011 and Civil Appeal no.3180 of 2011), which is neither related and also facts of that case are very different to that of the appellant.

8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and has erred in facts in ignoring that the Hon. SEBI itself has passed the order stating that there are no adverse findings with respect of the appellant's role in the price manipulation in the scrip of Moryo Industries.

9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming additions of Rs. 11,30,109 u/s 69C of the Act, being unexplained expenditure, made by the Ld.