ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24.12.2025 for the AY2016-17.

2. The issue raised in ground no 1 is against the order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of assessment as made by the AO u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act.

3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.09.2016, declaring total income at ₹6,050/-. The show notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 30.03.2023, wherein it was stated that assessee is a beneficiary as appeared in dissemination note mentioning ₹5,70,41,000/- for the impugned assessment year, annexing with the notice a verification which also referred to the dissemination note. The various allegations were made in the dissemination note. Dissemination note also referred to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act and also referred to some entry operator, Mahendra Sethia. Thereafter, the balance sheets for five years were analyzed and it was alleged that the assessee had liquidated investments in A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2017-18 of ₹5.70 crores and ₹14.13 crores respectively. Dissemination note also states that there was change in share holding pattern and directorship during F.Y. 2015-16, which was not correct as there was no such change. It was also alleged in the said notes that the assessee is a beneficiary of sale of unlisted equity shares. The assessee replied the said show cause notice by furnishing various documents such as details of non-current investments sold during the year along with documents of the parties to whom the shares were sold, details of long-term loans and advances along with details of source of funds, bank statement for the year, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account along with Schedules and ITR acknowledgement etc. The assessee requested the ld. AO to drop proceedings as there was no evidence suggesting that income has escaped assessment.However, the ld. AO, without disposing off the objections raised by the assessee, passed the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 27.04.2023, wherein it was held that it is fit case to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. Finally, the ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, which was complied with by the assessee by filing the return of income on 23.12.2023, declaring income of ₹6,050/-. Thereafter the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were replied by the assessee and the ld. AO, after taking into account the reply of the assessee, came to the conclusion that the sale of investments to the tune of ₹5,70,41,000/- was unexplained cash credit on the ground that assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and consequently the same was added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed by the AO.

4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-

“6.2.1 It is evident from the assessment order that the ld. AO reopened the case on the basis of the information available with the department. The AO found that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and after following the due procedure as per the provisions of Sec 147 rws 148A of the Act with the approval of the specified authority has reopened the case and issued the notice u/s 148. In response to the said notice, the appellant also filed ROI for the year under consideration. The order u/s 148A(d) passed by the AO is placed below, wherein he has recorded that on examination made by him of the information available to him and the submission of the appellant he arrived at the conclusion that the case was fit for reopening and therefore reopened and issued the notice u/s 148 with prior approval of the specified authority. Therefore, the grounds 2 to 5 are dismissed. ”

5. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before