MADHU BHUPATBHAI LUKHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM ITA Nos.135 & 136/Mum/2025 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)

Mr. Madhu Bhupatbhai Lukhi, ITO Ward -30(2)(3) B/1001, Shikhar Kunj, Kautilya Bhavan, Upper Govind Nagar, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad East, Bandra East, Mumbai-400097 Mumbai-400051 PAN: ACEPL0222D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

: None Assessee by Respondent by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2026

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless

Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”

for short) relevant to assessment year (“AY” for short) 2012-13 & 2013-14.

appeal by hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) and on perusal

of the materials available on record.

No.135/M/2025 as a lead case for the sake of convenience.

ITA Nos.135 & 136/Mum/2025 Mr. Madhu Bhupatbhai Lukhi 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“The Assessing Officer (AO) incorrectly determined the total income to be Rs.38,70,670, instead of the declared Rs.2,14,423. The AO added Rs.36,56,250 to the income.

of income for the year under consideration on 13.09.2012 declaring total income at

Rs.1,74,420/- from business, capital gains and other sources. The case of the assessee was

reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from Dy. Director of

ITA Nos.135 & 136/Mum/2025 Mr. Madhu Bhupatbhai Lukhi Income Tax (Inv.) Unit 8(2)-Mumbai, pursuant to the investigation conducted in the case

of M/s. Tilak Ventures Ltd. which scrip was alleged to be a penny stock, in which the

assessee is said to have transacted but had failed to disclose the same in her return. Notice

u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response

to the said notice, the assessee filed her return of income on 16.11.2019 declaring total

income at Rs.1,74,420/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) then passed the

assessment order dated 13.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining the total

income at Rs.38,70,670/- after making an addition of Rs.36,56,250/- u/s. 68 of the Act

towards the Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG” for short) earned in the transaction entered

into by the assessee in the alleged penny stock which the assessee had claimed exempt u/s

10(38) of the Act.

order dated 14.11.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the

assessee has failed to substantiate her claim that the alleged transaction in the scrip of M/s.

Tilak Ventures Ltd. is a genuine transaction.

observed that the assessee’s case was reopened on the basis of the information that the

assessee was one of the beneficiaries of bogus accommodation entry involving the penny

scrip of M/s. Tilak Ventures Ltd. The Ld. AO made an addition u/s 68 of the Act on the

basis of investigation wing’s report, the details of the trade data and the exit providers

where it was alleged that the shares of M/s. Tilak Ventures Ltd. was merely a penny scrip

for providing accommodation entry by way of bogus LTCG/Short Term Capital Loss

ITA Nos.135 & 136/Mum/2025 Mr. Madhu Bhupatbhai Lukhi (“STCL” for short). The assessee’s contention is that the transaction was genuine and that

the shares were acquired by the assessee through genuine brokers and that the scrips were

traded in the authorized stock exchange, the shares duly dematerialized and money was

paid through banking channels. The lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s

contention on the ground that there was unusual rise in price of the alleged penny scrip

M/s. Tilak Ventures Ltd. within a short span of time and that there was no significant

activity carried on by the company which resulted in the sudden increase of the share price.

The lower authorities further held that the financials of the company also did not support

the increase in the share price which was also corroborated by the report of the investigation

wing stating that it was only for providing accommodation entry in which the assessee was

one of the beneficiary. Further, it is observed that the shares have been purchased by the

assessee through preferential allotments which was not duly explained by the assessee as

how the said shares were allotted to her. It is also observed that the persons to whom the

shares have been sold were also found to have no sufficient means or either to be hereby a

paper companies or exit providers and also did not have any knowledge of the impugned

purchases. The assessee has also failed to explain neither before the lower authorities nor

before us as to how these are genuine transactions and not merely bogus accommodation

entry for claiming LTCG/STCL. Pertinently, there was no representation before us on

behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing of this appeal inspite of the fact that several

adjournments were granted to the assessee prior to the final hearing. In the absence of any

contradicting evidences filed by the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order of

the Ld. CIT(A) and hence deem it fit to dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the

assessee.

ITA Nos.135 & 136/Mum/2025 Mr. Madhu Bhupatbhai Lukhi 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

appeal i.e. ITA No.136/Mum/2025 as well and hence the same is also hereby allowed. .

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated: 30.04.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai