M/S. BAKLIWAL VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R. L. REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2058/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., ITO, 25, ADI Banstalla Lane, Kolkata – Vs. Ward – 9(2), 700007, West Bengal Kolkata [PAN: AADCB1238R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Shishir Bajaj, FCA Respondent by: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.08.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi,(hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”],dated15.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’) along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee, which were complied with by assessee by furnishing details and documents before the AO. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of non-banking financial activities and also engaged in the business of trading of equity shares, investments and also lending surplus money on interest. The AO, during the assessment proceedings, asked assessee to furnish details in support of short-term capital loss (STCL). The assessee submitted that it is not incurred STCL but incurred losses on the sale of shares, which was the business loss of the assessee supported by proper contract notes and has been made through recognized brokers. The assessee submitted that the trading loss was incurred to the tune of Rs.85,06,275/-on the sale of shares of Sulabh Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that the assessee-company purchased the said shares via e-market transactions from share broking company. According to the AO, it is the penny stock. Before the AO, the assessee furnished copy of bank account, D-mat account, contract notes for purchase and sale of shares etc. It was submitted that assessee purchased said shares in the regular course of business in the preceding assessment year and sold during the year thereby incurring a loss of Rs.85,06,275/- and the same was claimed as business loss of the assessee. However, the AO, after elaborate discussion, held that business loss to be unexplained cash credit and added the same u/s 68 of the Act.

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO banking finance services, trading, share investments and advancing money on interest. During the year, the assessee sold shares , which were purchased in the earlier years thereby incurring loss on the said shares, which were duly reflected in the books of account and the return was filed by assessee reflecting all these transactions. The assessee denied that the stock is a penny stock. The assessee though admitted that there was suspension of share trading vide order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Bombay Stock Exchange but thereafter the same was revoked vide letter dated 06.03.2017.

“7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has submitted before us the statement showing purchases and sale of long-term capital gain on sale of equity shares (PB-1). The assessee submitted allotment advice for 75,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. (PB-2). The assessee submitted the bank detail for payment (vide PB-3 to 5). The assessee submitted before us NSDL statement showing preferential allotment of 75000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. We note that the assessee also submitted extract of resolution passed and screenshot of money control showing splitting of face value from Rs.10 to Rs. 1 of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. (PB-11 to 13). The assessee submitted the NSDL statement showing allotment of 7,50,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. at fair value of Rs. 1 (PB-14 to 17). The balance sheet and profit & loss

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO account along with investment schedule showing 7,50,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. for assessment year 2013-14 (PB-18 to 23) were also submitted. The assessee also submitted the sale bill along with contract note from broker for sale of 1,25,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. (PB-23 to 46). The broker’s statement showing payment made for the sale has also been submitted by the assessee,(vide PB-47 to 59). The bank statement reflecting receipt of sale consideration for sale of 1,25,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and services ltd is placed in paper book vide,(PB-60 to 63). The Profit & loss account and computation of income for assessment year 2014-15 (PB-64 to 69) were also placed in the paper book. With help of these plethora documents and evidences, the ld Counsel claimed that long term capital gain on sale of equity shares of Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. of Rs. 1,12,13,010/- during the current financial year, is genuine. 8. We note that the assessee has earned long term capital gain on sale of equity shares of Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. of Rs. 1,12,13,010/- during the current financial year. During assessment proceedings details and evidences in support of purchase and sale of shares as asked for have been submitted before the learned Assessing Officer from time to time. However, the ld. Assessing Officer has treated the transaction in equity shares of M/sSulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. as bogus and added Rs. 1,12,13,010/- being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of such equity shares only on the basis of his suspicion without bringing any adverse material on record in support of his contention in spite of the fact that the sale transactions have been done through recognized exchange through the authorized broker and all relevant supporting documents have been submitted before the learned Assessing Officer. Further, learned Assessing Officer has also added Rs. 56,065/- on account of undisclosed commission payment @ 0.5% of the Long-Term Capital Gain that had been assumed to be incurred to arrange bogus Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,12,13,010/-. We note that the scrips / equity shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. has been dealt with by the SMC Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vasudha Jain, in ITA No.1018/Kol/2018, for A.Y. 2015-16, order dated 15.02.2019, wherein the SMC Bench of this Tribunal held that addition has been made by AO mainly on the basis of ‘suspicion’ and ‘probability’. No price rigging established by AO. The ld AO as well as ld CIT(A), were guided by the report of the Investigation Wing, which is general in nature and no specific findings for the assessee, and hence based on these facts the SMC Bench deleted the addition, observing the following: “13. The ld AR also brought to our notice that once the assessee has furnished allevidences in support of the genuineness of the 4

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO transactions, the onus to disprove the same ison revenue. He referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofKrishnanand Agnihotri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] 1 SCC 816 (SC). In thiscase the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction isbenami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and the burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing evidence of a definite character which would directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstancesunerringly and reasonably raising inference of that fact. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that it is not enough to show circumstances which might create suspicion because thecourt cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established byevidence. The ld AR submitted that similar view has been taken in the following judgmentswhile deciding the issue relating to exemption claimed by the assessee on LTCG on allegedPenny Socks. (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs. J. C. Agarwal HUF – ITYA No. 32/Agr/2007 (Agra ITAT) 14. Moreover it was submitted before us by ld AR that the AO was not justified in taking an adverse view against the assessee on the ground of abnormal price rise of the shares and alleging price rigging. It was submitted that there is no allegation in orders of SEBI and/or the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing to the effect that the assessee, the Companies dealt in and/or his broker was a party to the price rigging or manipulation of price in CSE. The ld AR referred to the following judgments in support of this contention wherein under similar facts of the case it was held that the AO was not justified in refusing to allow the benefit under section 10(38) of the Act and to assess the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act :- (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs.Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT – ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT – [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 15. We note that the ld. D.R. had heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bimalchand Jain in Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017. We notethat in the case relied upon by the ld.

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO D.R, we find that the facts are different from the facts of the case in hand. Firstly, in that case, the purchases were made by the assessee in cash for acquisition of shares of companies and the purchase of shares of the companies was donethrough the broker and the address of the broker was incidentally the address of thecompany. The profit earned by the assessee was shown as capital gains which was notaccepted by the A.O. and the gains were treated as business profit of the assessee by treatingthe sales of the shares within the ambit of adventure in nature of trade. Thus, it can be seenthat in the decision relied upon by the ld. DR, the dispute was whether the profit earned on sale of shares was capital gains or business profit. 16. It is clear from the above that the facts of the case of the assessee are similar with the facts in the cases wherein the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal has deleted the addition and allowed the claim of LTCG on such sale of shares Therefore, respectfully following thesame ratio, I am inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO not to treat the long term capital as bogus and order to allow the claim of LTCG on sale of share of M/s. SESL and delete the consequential addition.” 9. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the SMC bench of ITAT Kolkata, and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the SMC Bench in the case of Vasudha Jain (supra), we find no reason to interfere in the said order of the SMC Bench of this Tribunal and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, we delete the addition of Rs.1,12,13,010/- and we also delete the consequential addition on account of unexplained expenditure towardscommission at Rs.56,065/-.” 7. Similarly, the Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow in case of Smt. Mridula Agarwal vs. DCIT, in IT(SS)A No.410/Lkw/2019, dated 05.04.2022 decided the issue in favour of assessee by observing and held as under:

“5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that assessee during the year under consideration sold certain shares of the script Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. through recognized stock exchange through screen-based trading system and also through authorized stock brokers and filed before Assessing Officer various evidences of having sold these shares through these authorized brokers. 6. The copies of these documents in ITA No. 410/Lkw/2019 as filed before Assessing Officer are placed in Paper Book as detailed below:

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 1. Details of long term capital gain on sale of 291028 shares of Sulabh Engg. & Services Ltd. pg. 26. 2. Copy of detail of purchase P.B. Pg. 22. 3. Copy of notice for sub division of shares P.B. Pg.25. 4. Copy of assessee’s account in the books of share broker SPFL Securities Ltd. (P.B.Pgs. 27-29) 5. Copies of bills in respect of sale of shares sold through broker (Paper Book Pgs. 30-63) 6. Copy of D-MAT account of the assessee with Prabhat Finance Services Ltd. (P.B. Pgs. 64-65). 7. Copy of Bank account statement with Union Bank of India placed in P.B. Pgs. 174-178, wherein the sale proceeds of shares of Sulabh Engineers P. Ltd. were credited. 6.1 Similar documents were filed in the case of Manoj Kumar Agarwal which is involved in ITA No. 412 and the details of paper book pages where such documents are placed is as below: 1. List of sale of shares (P.B. pg.48) 2. Copies of assessee’s account in the books of share broker Prabhat Finance Services Ltd. (P.B. pg.49 to 52). 3. Copies of bills in respect of such sales issued by Prabhat Finance Services Ltd. (P.B. pgs.53-100). 4. Copy of D-MAT account of assessee with Prabhat Financial Services Ltd. (P.B. pgs.101-102). 5. Copy of bank statement wherein proceeds of such shares was credited P.B. Pgs. 229-240A. 7. The above documents clearly demonstrate that assessee had sold shares through recognized stock exchanges and through authorized stockbrokers on which necessary security transaction tax and service tax has been paid. The transactions of sale are though real time screen based trading and payments for sale of shares has been received by the assessee through banking channels. 8. Though the above shares were sold through authorized stock brokers on recognized stock exchange but the same were not purchased through the brokers in the case of Mridula Agarwal. In that case, the assessee had purchased 35000 equity shares from Success Vayapar Ltd. on 16.4.2012 for Rs.700000, a copy of ledger account of Success Vayapar Ltd. is placed in P.B. pg. 22. The payment for the purchase of the above shares was made through Union Bank of India from the account of the assessee a copy of Bank account is placed in P.B. pgs.23 and 24 where the amount of Rs.7.00 lacs has been debited to the account of assessee. The said 35000 equity shares of Rs.10 were sub divided in to equity shares of Rs.1/- each. Copy of 7

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO letter by BSE regarding sub division of shares is placed in P.B. pg.25. Such shares were received in the DEMAT account of the assessee with Prabhat Financial Services Ltd. which has been credited in the DEMAT account of the assessee on 20.07.2012 such copy of DEMAT account is placed in P.B. page 64 to 65. 9. In the case of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal, the assessee did not directly purchase the shares but he got gift of 700000 shares from his father Maha Veer Prasad Agarwal a copy of gift deed is placed in P.B. pgs. 23-24. The allotment of such shares was directly made by company to Shri Maha Veer Prasad Agarwal father of the assessee and copy of allotment letter is placed in P.B. pg.28. The payment for the above shares was made by the father of assessee from his bank account in Bank of Baroda a copy of such bank account is placed in P.B. pgs. 29 to 45. The relevant entries are appearing in P.B. pg.34. Such shares were credited in the DEMAT account ofassessee with Prabhat Financial Services Ltd. a copy of such DEMAT account statement is placed in P.B. pages 101 to 102. 9.1 These documentary evidences for purchase and sale of shares has not been disputed by the department and neither any adverse findings has been made on such evidences. The only reason for rejecting the claim of the assessee is the investigation report of department and certain adverse statements of the some persons. The assessee had requested to Assessing Officer for making available complete statements of such persons and also wanted to cross examine the witnesses of Revenue. A copy of request letter to Assessing Officer is placed in P.B. pgs.177 & 111 respectively. The Assessing Officer in turn requested the assessee to produce the witnesses which is not in accordance with law as the Revenue was responsible for making available it’s witnesses before assessee for their cross examination. The issue of cross examination was also not considered properly by ld. CIT(A). Therefore there is a violation of principles of natural justice also. 10. Various benches of the Tribunal under similar facts and circumstances has decided similar issues in favour of the assessee which has been relied on by the assessee. The Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal also under similar circumstances in various cases has decided similar issues in favour of the assessee in various cases. In group appeals in ITA No. 544-552 and 555/Lkw/2019 wherein the Tribunal vide a consolidated order dated 3.6.2021 has allowed relief to the assessee in same script of Sulabh Engineers & Services Ltd. The above appeals has been allowed by the Tribunal after following its own orders in ITA No. 475 & 681/Lkw/2019 in the case of Uma Shanker Dhandhania wherein vide order dated 16/02/2021 it held as under: “8. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that there is no dispute between the parties 8

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO regarding the evidences which the assessee had produced before the authorities below for claiming that assessee indeed was allotted one lac shares @ Rs.20/- each and which were sold partly during AY 2014-15 andpartly during AY 2015-16. There is also no dispute regarding contract notes issued by the brokers and proceeds paid by them through banking channels. The only dispute between the parties is that Assessing Officer on the basis of a report from investigation wing of the Department has held the capital gain to be bogus and has held the amount of capital gain as assessee’s own money being unaccounted money converted into accounted money by managing the capital gains. The assessee, on the other hand, produced before the authorities below evidences for allotment of shares and for making payment to the company directly through banking channels. Copy of allotment letter from the company is placed at paper book pg.1 whereby the company had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.20.00 lacs and had allotted one lac shares to the assessee. The payment to the company was made from the bank account of the assessee, a copy of which is placed in paper book Pg. 2 to 8. A part of the shares were sold by India Infoline Ltd. in the two years and the contract notes issued by India Infoline are placed in paper book Pgs. 9 to 14 and 11 to 15 in the two years respectively. Copy of Demat Account of the assessee where the shares allotted by company were credited and from where the shares were sold is placed at paper book pgs. 33 to 40 and 24 to 31 respectively in the two years. The copy of bank account wherein the proceeds were credited is placed at pgs. 2 to 8 and 2 to 10 respectively for both years. From the contract notes issued by the broker India Infoline Ltd. we find that assessee had paid service tax and STT and shares were sold through screen based transactions wherein the exact time and order numbers are mentioned. The copy of Demat statement of assessee shows credit of ten lac shares and on sale of 1,11,700 during the AY 2014-15 the balance is reflected at 8,88,300 shares as on 31/03/2014 (PB-26) and on sale of 30,000 shares during AY 2015-16, balance shares are reflected at 8,58,300 as on 31/03/2015 (PB-27). These balance shares of 8,58,300 are reflected in the Demat statements upto 31/03/2019. From the Demat statement, we further observe that assessee was holding certain other scrips also. The assessee, therefore, had filed sufficient evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions but authorities below has rejected the claim of the assessee on the basis of an investigation report of the Department whereby the scrip was held to be penny stock which was being used for providing bogus long term gains. We find that the Kolkata Tribunal in ITA 2467/Kol/2017, vide order dated 10.5.2018 has considered a similar issue of the same scrip M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. and has allowed relief to the assessee by holding as under: “7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has submitted before us the

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO statement showing purchases and sale of long term capital gain on sale of equity shares (PB-1). The assessee submitted allotment advice for 75,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. (PB-2). The assessee submitted the bank detail for payment (vide PB-3 to 5). The assessee submitted before us NSDL statement showing preferential allotment of75000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. We note that the assessee also submitted extract of resolution passed and screenshot of money control showing splitting of face value from Rs.10 to Rs. 1 of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. (PB-11 to 13). The assessee submitted the NSDL statement showing allotment of 7,50,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. at fair value of Rs. 1 (PB-14 to 17). The balance sheet and profit & loss account along with investment schedule showing 7,50,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. for assessment year 2013-14 (PB-18 to 23) were also submitted. The assessee also submitted the sale bill along with contract note from broker for sale of 1,25,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. (PB-23 to 46). The broker’s statement showing payment made for the sale has also been submitted by the assessee,(vide PB-47 to 59). The bank statement reflecting receipt of sale consideration for sale of 1,25,000 shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and services ltd is placed in paper book vide,(PB-60 to 63). The Profit & loss account and computation of income for assessment year 2014- 15 (PB-64 to 69) were also placed in the paper book. With help of these plethora documents and evidences, the ld Counsel claimed that long term capital gain on sale of equity shares of Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. of Rs. 1,12,13,010/- during the current financial year, is genuine. 8. We note that the assessee has earned long term capital gain on sale of equity shares of Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. of Rs. 1,12,13,010/- during the current financial year. During assessment proceedings details and evidences in support of purchase and sale of shares as asked for have been submitted before the learned Assessing Officer from time to time. However, the ld. Assessing Officer has treated the transaction in equity shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. as bogus and added Rs. 1,12,13,010/- being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of such equity shares only on the basis of his suspicion without bringing any adverse material on record in support of his contention in spite of the fact that the sale transactions have been done through recognized exchange through the authorized broker and all relevant supporting documents have been submitted before the learned Assessing Officer. Further, learned Assessing Officer has also added Rs. 56,065/- on account of undisclosed

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO commission payment @ 0.5% of the Long Term Capital Gain that had been assumed to be incurred to arrange bogus Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,12,13,010/-. We note that the scripts / equity shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. has been dealt with by the SMC Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vasudha Jain, in ITA No.1018/Kol/2018, for A.Y. 2015-16, order dated 15.02.2019wherein the SMC Bench of this Tribunal held that addition has been made by AO mainly on the basis of ‘suspicion’ and ‘probability’. No price rigging established by AO. The ld AO as well as ld CIT(A), were guided by the report of the Investigation Wing, which is general in nature and no specific findings for the assessee, and hence based on these facts the SMC Bench deleted the addition, observing the following. “13. The ld AR also brought to our notice that once the assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the genuineness of the transactions, the onus to disprove the same is on revenue. He referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan and Agnihotri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] 1 SCC 816 (SC). In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and the burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing evidence of a definite character which would directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising inference of that fact. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that it is not enough to show circumstances which might create suspicion because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. The ld AR submitted that similar view has been taken in the following judgments while deciding the issue relating to exemption claimed by the assessee on LTCG on alleged Penny Socks. (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs. J. C. Agarwal HUF – ITYA No. 32/Agr/2007 (Agra ITAT) 14. Moreover, it was submitted before us by ld AR that the AO was not justified in taking an adverse view against the assessee on the ground of abnormal price rise of the shares and alleging price rigging. It was submitted that there is no allegation in orders of SEBI and/or the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing to the effect that the assessee, the Companies dealt in and/or his broker was a party to the price rigging or manipulation of price in CSE. The ld AR referred to the following judgments in support of this contention wherein under

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO similar facts of the case it was held that the AO was not justified in refusing to allow the benefit under section 10(38) of the Act and to assess the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act :- (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs.Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iii)Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT – ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv)Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT – [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum)

ITA No.2058/Kol/2025/AY 2015-16 M/s Bakliwal Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Since the facts of the cases as decided by the coordinate benches are identical involving the same scrip. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 28/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru R. L. Reddy) (Rajesh Kumar) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 28/08/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Deputy Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata