IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.

BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raj Kumar Galecha Vs. Assistant Commissioner

27, Gundochiya Ka Bas, of Income Tax, Pali. Central Circle-2, [PAN: ABCPG1958N) Jodhpur.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Sh. Mayank Taparia, Adv.

Respondent by Sh. Manoj Kuamr Mahar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), Jaipur-5 dated 17^th October, 2023 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s order dated 28.12.2017 passed for the AY 2014-15 u/s

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record by the assessee.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 48,49,782/- by upholding the AO’s action in treating the long term capital gain exempted u/s 10(38) as undisclosed income.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, both the AO and ld. CIT (A)

erred in rejecting the documentary evidences found and seized during the course of search from which it was clearly manifest that the assessee certainly purchased and sale equity shares of scripts Sun Asian. No incriminating documents found during the course of search proceedings.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, both the AO and ld. CIT (A)

erred have not brought on record any concrete material on record before holding the LTCG claimed at Rs. 48,92,782/- u/s 10(38) of the Act as bogus and entire addition is based on hypothetical presumption. Thus, the addition so made deserves to be deleted.

5. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual who had filed his original return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.07.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. 7,50,190/-. A search under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department at the business/residential premises of Pali based Golecha Group consisting of Shri Raj Kumar Golecha and his family members on 17.12.2015. During the course of search proceedings several incriminating documents along with cash, jewellery and other valuables were found/seized from the various premises of the Group searched. Some loose papers were seized from the residence of Shri LabhchandGolecha (father of the assesseed) and his statement under section 132(4) of the IT Act was also recorded. Notice under section 153A of the IT Act was issued on 04.07.2016 for filing the return of income for AY 2014-15 which was duly served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee filed the return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 7,40,190/- as was originally declared. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with a detailed questionnaire were issued on 11.07.2017, which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.10.2017. In compliance to the notices issued, the authorized representative of the assessee attended and submitted some of the required details. The AO completed the assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 28.12.2017 by making total addition of Rs. 2,33,25,782/- to the returned income of Rs. 7,50,190/-. While completing the assessment, the AO made a protective addition of Rs. 1,84,76,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Besides, the AO also made an additio