NEETU AGARWAL,BHIWADI, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI RAJASTHAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 458/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2014-15)

Neetu Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer C/o Ajay Traders, Neelam NFAC, Chowk, Bhiwadi, Delhi Rajasthan 301019 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABGPA 7303 R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Rajesh Goyal, Adv & Sh. Prashant Goel, CA Respondent by : Sh. Bhanwar Singh Ratanu, CIT Date of Hearing 26.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 24.01.2025 under

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 458/JPR/2025 Neetu Agarwal Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in law and fact in disallowing the appeal by stating that "appellant has accepted the claim but tax the exempted long term capital gain. In view of these facts transaction with Daya Nand Singh was not accepted being in genuine transaction." The appellant assessee has already declared the gain of share in her return of income as taxable income at Rs.25,84,364/- and paid taxes on such income. The assessee has received the gain Rs.25,84,364/-only once, but the learned Assessing Officer added the said gain in income. Your honour the addition of same income twice is against the law and against the principle of natural justice and the assessee thus prays that the addition of Rs.30,36,075/- may kindly be deleted and oblige. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in law and facts in disallowing the 2nd ground by stating that the issue raised in this ground has been already discussed in ground No. 1 which has been dismissed, therefore, ground No. 2 is also dismissed, but your honour the assessee has received only one payment of Rs.28,20,614/- as gross receipt which has already shown in her return of income and when no other amount is received or receivable from any party i.e. Daya Nand Singh the same income cannot be added thrice in income again and again, so kindly delete the addition of Rs.28,35,000/- and oblige. 3. The assessee before us, has challenged the addition of Rs.30,36,075/- and Rs.28,35,000/- made to her income on account of alleged bogus transaction of Long Term Capital Gain. 4. We have heard both the parties. The facts relating to the case are that, the AO was in possession of information, that the assessee had sold shares through M/s. Lifeline Securities Ltd., for Rs.30,36,075/-, and had also entered into the transactions related to fictitious profits in Equity/Derivative Trading through Dayanand Singh for Rs.28,35,000/-. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened, and in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.25,84,364/-, on account of Long Term Capital

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 458/JPR/2025 Neetu Agarwal Gain of sale of shares. She contended that, she had purchased shares of IndusInd Bank for Rs.2,35,650/- on 01.04.2019 through Lifeline Securities Ltd. and sold the shares on 28.03.2013 through the same broker for Rs.28,30,800/- She denied having entered into any transaction with Sh. Dayanand. The AO, however, stated that, he was in possession of information, that the assessee had carried out transaction of earning fictitious profits in Equity/Derivative Trading though Dayanand Singh. In the assessment framed, thereafter, he added both the amount received by the assessee on sale of shares through M/s Lifeline Securities Ltd., Rs.30,36,075/-, and also the fictitious profits made by the assessee in Equity/Derivative Trading though Mr. Dayanand of Rs.28,35,000/-. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) reiterating her contentions that she did undertake transaction of sale of shares of M/s Lifeline Securities Ltd., which was duly disclosed in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and that however, she did not undertake any transaction through Mr. Dayanand. 6. She further, contended that having revealed the income earned on account of one transaction undertaken through M/s Lifeline Securities Ltd., and denied have conducted the second transaction, the addition made by the AO on both the counts needed to be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) however, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 7. The dispute therefore before us, is in relation to the addition made of Rs.30,36,075/-, on account of transaction undertaken by the assessee through M/s Lifeline Securities Ltd., and of Rs.28,35,000/-, on

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 458/JPR/2025 Neetu Agarwal account of fictitious profits in Equity/Derivative Trading through Mr. Dayanand Singh. The fact on record is that, the assessee had disclosed the profits earned on transaction undertaken through M/s Lifeline Securities Ltd. Therefore, the addition made in relation to the said transaction of Rs.30,36,075/-, is not sustainable offacts itself, and is accordingly directed to be deleted. With respect to the other addition made of Rs.28,35,000/-, allegedly undertaken by the assessee through Mr. Dayanand Singh, the assessee has repeatedly denied having undertaken any such transaction. The Revenue, we have noted has neither disclosed the specific details of the transaction either in the assessment order or even in the CIT(A) order, nor, the specific information in their possession, in relation to, the transaction undertaken by the assessee through Mr. Dayanand Singh. 8. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. DR was asked about the specific information relating to the said transaction, which it was fairly admitted was neither recorded in the assessment order nor in the Ld.CIT(A)’s order. The assessment order only reproduces the case related information detailed at page 3 of assessment order, with respect to the said transaction, which only revealed, the fact of assessee having entered into fictitious transaction resulting in fictitious profits in Equity/Derivative Trading with one Mr. Dayanand Singh for a value of Rs.28,35,000/-. The information being already sent to the AO, there is no disclosure regarding the specifics of the said information, nor does the same appear to have been revealed to the assessee also.

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 458/JPR/2025 Neetu Agarwal 9. In the light of the same, we find that there is no basis at all with the AO for having treated the transaction of Rs.25,84,364/- as the income of the assessee when the AO himself was not aware of the specifics of the transaction, nor did he reveal the same to the assessee or disclose the facts relating to the same in the assessment order. The addition therefore, made on account of an alleged fictitious transaction undertaken by the assessee with one Mr. Dayanand Singh also, we hold is not sustainable on facts and directed deletion of the same. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 22.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur