IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER&

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2256/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Integrator Consultants Pvt Vs. DCIT, CC – 1(4)

Ltd., 902, 9th Floor, 551, Abhinav Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Vasundhara Enclave, East CGO Annexe, MK Road, Delhi, Delhi – 110096 Mumbai – 400020.

PAN/GIR No. AAAC10517P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Ravi Gantra Revenue by Shri Virabhdra Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 06.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not quashing the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)

r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] despite the fact that re-opening was illegal, bad-in-

law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not treating the re-opening of assessment as bad-in-law since the re-opening was entirely based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind or independent enquiries on the part of the Ld. Assessing Officer.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not quashing the assessment order as the assessment was re-opened merely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing and SEBI Interim Order, which was under a different law with a different purpose and which was subsequently set aside and no independent enquiry was made by the Ld. Assessing Officer before the re-opening of assessment proceedings to translate the information into a 'reason to believe' or even before passing the assessment order. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of set off of loss of Rs 47,68,944/- made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, incurred on account of in trading in stock options by treating the same as bogus even though the sale / purchase was made in the normal course of business through online transactions on recognized stock exchange in the prescribed and legal manner as a bonafide trader without any acquaintance with counter parties to the transaction and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi, in the case of Kundan Rice Mills Ltd, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 120 taxmann.com 422 (Delhi - Trib.) provided in the paper book and the reliance on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakhi Trading P Limited was misplaced and irrelevant as the said judgement of the was rendered under the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and not under Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of set off of loss of Rs 47,68,944/- made by the Assessing Officer disregarding the relevant supporting documents in the form of demat statement, ledger, financial statements and bank statement furnished by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, thereby discharging the onus cast on the appellant.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of set off of loss of Rs 47,68,944/- made by the