IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 99/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Pinkal Rajeshbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs.

45, Sarthi Bungalows, Vibhag-3, Ward 3(3)(2), Nr. Surdhara Circle, Opp. T.V. Ahmedabad Tower, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN : AHMPP 4790 P]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Appellant represented by : Shri Vipul Khandhar, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR Date of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.04.2026

O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated

12.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. The assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal, challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act:-

“The learned AO had issued notice u/s 148 originally on 31.03.2021. In respect of the said notice u/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, the AO had given the reason for re-opening of assessment vide letter dated 03.12.2021 wherein the AO has stated that the appellant has entered into accommodation entries as fictitious loan from bogus concerns managed and controlled by the accommodation entry provider duo i.e. Sanjay Shah and Jignesh Shah amt to Rs.4919403/-. The said allegation of availment of fictitious loans from Sanjay Shah & Jignesh Shah was completely denied by the appellant in his reply.

Afterwards, while giving the final SCN dated 24.03.2022 in the re- assessment proceeding u/s 147 of IT Act, 1961, the AO contended that the appellant had done transaction of sale & purchase of penny stock namely M/s. Naisargik Agritech (India) Ltd and thereby entire sale consideration on sale of shares of Rs.4919403/- needs to be disallowed. The AO had also stated that the appellant has claimed fictitious LTCG on sale of shares of M/s. Naisargik Agritech (India) Ltd.

So, the appellant wants to submit that the AO has given the reason for re- opening of assessment as availment of fictitious loan and afterwards the AO has completed the re-assessment u/s 147 of IT Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.03.2022 contending that the appellant has claimed the LTCG of penny stock namely M/s. Naisargik Agritech (India) Ltd. So the entire re- assessment proceeding is bad in law and required to be set-aside. The AO has changed his grounds for re-assessment subsequently which is not sustainable in the interest of law and justice. Further, the AO had changed the reason vide SCN dated 24.03.2022 which was also after 31.03.2021 and thereby the said proceeding is considered as time-barred and required to be quashed.”

3. The assessee has raised the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal involving purely legal issues based on facts already available on record. The Ld. AR pleaded that additional grounds involving legal issues be admitted, for which reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC), and on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates Vs. ITO, 263 ITR 317.

4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The additional ground raised by the assessee involves a pure legal issue concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings and all relevant facts are already available on record. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. (supra) and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

5 The Ld. AR submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening clearly state that the assessee had received accommodation e