Reassessment proceedings are valid when the assessing officer has tangible material to form a bona fide belief regarding income escapement. In cases of alleged tax evasion via penny stocks, courts must apply the doctrine of human probabilities and commercial prudence to distinguish between genuine investment and sham transactions.

O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)], dated 08.07.2022, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043776574(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, excessive, perverse and bad in law. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice u's 148 of the Income Tax Act does not satisfy the statutory requirements for issue of such notice and as such all the proceedings under section 143(3)/ 147 of the Act is void ab initio and is liable to be quashed. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in treating Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 23,99,809/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The additions has been made purely on surmises, conjectures and hence not sustainable in the eye of law. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O.

4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions of Rs. 1,44,991/- under section 69A of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O.

5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act and/or the calculation of tax and interest thereon is incorrect.

6. That the appellant humbly craves leave to add, alter, withdraw grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee or delay in this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 13.12.2024 which is as under:

“I Ekta Tantia, daughter of Late. Shyam Sunder Bhotika of Sadar Para, Purulia H.O, Purulia -723101, West Bengal, India (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') do hereby affirm as follows:-

1. That an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed on 27.12.2019 wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer has inter-alia made additions of Rs. 25,44,800/- under section 68 of the Act.

2. That subsequently, the appellant has filed appeal before CIT(A) on against the aforesaid order dated 27.12.2019.

3. That the instant year is the first and the only year wherein the appellant had filed appeal and since the appellant was not aware about the procedural part of filing appeal, the appellant had approached her regular tax consultant namely Choubey and Associates to file appeal.

4. That the said firm had given contact details of its partner or associated personnel while filing Income Tax return of various years and Form 35 of the instant year. The email address of the said firm was mentioned in all return and form (choubeynassox@gmail.com&angkrishnal@gmail.com) and the appellant acted in good faith, was under the bonafide belief that the legal professional is looking after the appeal matters and keep her informed about the status of the appellate proceedings. However, the legal professionals failed to monitor their email accounts and did not notify the appellant regarding passing of appellate order under sec