##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 919/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Manishkumar Ramlakhan Income Tax Officer, Vs.

Agrawal, Ward-6(1)(1), A/29, Shreenath Park Society, Ahmedabad.

Opp. Jogeshwari Park Society, CTM Road, Amraiwali,

Ahmedabad- 380026. [PAN : AEQPA1710 H]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Appellant represented by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr DR

Date of Hearing 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 14.09.2026

O R D E R

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

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated17.04.2025 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 2018-19.

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

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of

Rs.14,85,833 made by the Ld.AO u/s.69A being gross sales consideration on

sales of shares, for which capital gain was declared in return of income.

ITA No. 919/Ahd/2025 Manishkumar R Agrawal Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19

- 2–

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding restriction of capital loss to the extent of Rs.18,30,074 as against Rs.40,73,969/ claimed in

return of income.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 27.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.31,34,370/-. In the return of income, the assessee declared Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.7,85,654/- claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act and Short-Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,01,979/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Kushal Group, Ahmedabad, on 05.02.2019. On the basis of information received pursuant to the said search and investigation regarding alleged price rigging and accommodation entries through penny-stock companies, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had undertaken transactions in the scrip of Kushal Tradelink Limited. The Assessing Officer held that the capital gains claimed by the assessee were bogus accommodation entries and that the entire sale consideration of Rs.14,85,833/- represented unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the said amount was added to the income of the assessee and subjected to tax under section

115BBE of the Act.

4. The assessee also claimed Long-Term Capital Loss of Rs.40,73,969/- on sale of an immovable property. The Assessing Officer, however, recomputed the cost of acquisition by excluding interest paid to the builder of Rs.10,32,551/-, other charges of Rs.7,05,340/- and maintenance charges of Rs.3,34,800/-. Consequently, the Long-Term

Capital Loss was restricted to Rs.18,30,074/-.

ITA No. 919/Ahd/2025 Manishkumar R Agrawal Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19

- 3–

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of the alleged bogus capital-gain transaction. However, while disposing of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 as relating to the penny-stock addition and dismissed both grounds. The actual Ground No. 2 before us, however, relates to restriction of the capital loss on sale of immovable property

and has not been separately adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A).

6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the transactions in shares of Kushal Tradelink Limited were genuine transactions carried out through the recognised stock exchange and a SEBI-registered broker. The purchase and sale transactions were supported by contract notes, broker statements, demat account statements and bank statement