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

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2469/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Chintan Shailesh Shah Vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(2)

Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar, (Now Ward 41(3)(1))

Adarsh Dugdhalaya Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Malad (W), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai –

400064. 400051.

PAN/GIR No. AMZPS2768Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 14.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. From the records, we noticed that today is the 8^th opportunity and even on previous occasions dates were being sought by the assessee, and ultimately stopped appearing before the court. In our view, it is the bounded duty of assessee to pursue its appeal but assessee has failed to do so, which goes to show that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal.

3. On the other hand Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.

4. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record and orders passed by the revenue authorities. The assessee has challenged the additions made by the AO u/s 68 and 69C of the Act, and in this regard, we have meticulously analyzed the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and found that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with both the grounds in detail while passing the orders and operative portion of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para 6 to

7 which are reproduced herein below:

6. Decision As per records & as tabulated in a preceding para of this order, the appellant was issued multiple online hearing notices requesting to file details supporting her contentions mentioned in the grounds of appeal. He was also granted opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing on 24/01/2024 at 4.07pm onwards through his AR Hitesh M Shah, CA.

After careful perusal of facts on record and submissions of the appellant, the is decided as hereunder. appeal

6.1 Ground no. 1 & 2: These grounds are general in nature. Vide submissions dated 26/12/2023, the appellant has stated that he was not pressing these grounds. Considering the same, these grounds are dismissed as not having been pressed

6.2 Ground no. 3: This ground pertains to the claim that the AO erred in denying exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and in adding Rs. 72,96,366/-

u/s 68 of the Act.

6.2.1 During appeal proceedings, the appellant has made the similar submissions as have been dealt by the AO in his order. His submissions during the appeal proceedings are summarized below.

(i) The appellant had purchased 15000 shares of M/s. Conart Traders Ltd @Rs. 20/- per share for total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28/11/2011 from Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd vide debit note dated 28/11/2011. The payment had been made to the seller on 15/09/2011 by through bank account vide cheque drawn by the appellant. The appellant was allotted share certificates in physical form and were dematerialized and received in account of the appellant during July 2013 (ii) Conart Traders Ltd was amalgamated with Sunrise Asian ltd, a listed company as per order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and appellant received 15000 equity shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd on 21/06/2013 These shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd were received in demat account of the appellant on 27/09/2013 (iii) Appellant sold these 15000 equity shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd for Rs. 75.90,730-on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) through stock broker Stochastics Securities Pvt Ltd vis contract notes dated 03/09/2013, 05/09/2013, 10/09/20