IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4198/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Narendra Shantilal Bapna v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward –

Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम

28(2)(3)

B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4^th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ACLPB8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR)

Date of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 09.06.2025 is preferred 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 the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 27.12.2017 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 ofRs.2,33,24,050/- of entire sale consideration of STT paid listed shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd on rejecting the appellant’s claim of Long term capital gain;

2. The Ld. CTT(A), before confirming the addition of sale consideration of shares of Rs

2,33,24,050/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being, a) The correctness of the documentary evidences, being Contract-cum-bills, ledger account/confirmation of broker, D-mat statements, Bank statements, Share certificates, Bhav copy, etc, are not disputed by Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A);

b) The substantial increase in price of shares cannot be a sole reason to treat the bonafide transactionas non-genuine, since the appellant had sold the listed shares on floor of recognised Bombay stock exchange at prevailing market price;

c) The period of holding of listed shares in appellant’s D-mat account exceeds 15 months and such shares had been sold on floor of BSE on which STT, Service Tax, etc. had been paid;

d) The appellant, in statement recorded on oath u/s 131, had confirmed the transactions along with supporting documents;

e) The SEBI had not framed any allegations and had not passed.

Additional Grounds of appeal:

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,33,24,050/- of entire sale consideration of STT paid listed shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd on rejecting the appellant’s claim of Long term capital gain;

2. The Ld. CIT(A), before confirming the addition of sale consideration of shares of Rs.2,33,24,050/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being;

a) The correctness of the documentary evidences, being Contract-cum-bills, ledger account/confirmation of broker, D-mat statements, Bank statements, Share certificates, Bhav copy, etc. are not disputed by Ld. AO and Ld.

CIT(A);

b) The substantial increase in price of shares cannot be a sole reason to treat the bonafide transaction as non-genuine, since the appellant had sold the listed shares on floor of recognised Bombay stock exchange at prevailing market price;

c) The period of holding of listed shares in appellant’s D-mat account exceeds 15 months and such shares had been sold on floor of BSE on which STT, Service Tax, etc. had been paid;

d) The appellant, in statement recorded on oath u/s 131, had confirmed the transactions along with supporting documents;

e) The SEBI had not framed any allegations and had not passed any contrary order against the appellant and stock broker;

f) The appellant is not related to any directors/promoters and exit providers and the AO, inspite of appellant’s written request, had not provided the copies of