VIJAY H SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.8601/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year:2011-12) Vijay H Shah Huf ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai I-23, Tejkiran Building Piramal Chambers, Jijibhoy Lane, Vs. 2ndDadiseth x Lane, Mumbai- Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 400007 PAN: AACHV8644M Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assesseeby : Shri V. P. Kothari Revenueby : Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)/ Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR) : 21.04.2026 Date of Hearing : 08.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.09.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12,arises from the assessment order under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 31.03.2011, passed by Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(5) [in short, “the Ld.AO”].The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as under:

ITA No. 8601/Mum/2025 Vijay H Shah Huf

“1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and facts: (a) In dismissing the appeal and confirming the addition of Rs.29,96,428/-being sale proceeds of shares of M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd without properly considering the documents and submission made before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) NFAC. (b) Failed to consider that the appellant is traders in shares and securities and declaring business income and not under the head capital gain for claiming exemption. (c) In not giving any finding on the presumption of the Assessing officer that the appellant has indulged in penny stock scam without having any evidence and as such the appellant has considered all share trading transaction including the share trading of M/s. Comfort Intech Limited as business income and not capital gains. (d) In confirming the sales consideration of Rs.29,96,428/-instead of actual net consideration of Rs.29,82,532.47 as per Contract Note No.1011006/982 dated 07.04.2010 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (e) In not allowing the deductions of cost of purchase of the shares sold and also the profit of above Rs.12.35 Lakhs which is included in the business income.”

ITA No. 8601/Mum/2025 Vijay H Shah Huf 4. The decision of Ld. CIT(A) is culled out as under, for completeness of facts: “7. Decision - I have examined facts of the case, gone through the order, GoA, SoF and WS. I have gone through the decisions of the ITATs and find that they are not relevant to the facts of the present case as the appellant has not proved before the AO that the transactions were disclosed in profit and loss account and were in the nature of trading. The AO was not having access either to the profit and loss account or to the copy of account of the appellant in the books of the brokers. Further, the appellant has not made a request in Form-35 to accept additional evidence and has come with these evidences during the appellate proceedings. These evidence are, therefore, not accepted. As the facts of the present case suggest, there was a sound case of making addition and the AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 29,96,428/-. The appellant has not adduced anything to prove its case. He has been unable to show an illogical connection between the facts adduced by the AO and the findings in the Order. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. All GoAs are, therefore, dismissed and the order making addition of Rs. 29,96,428/- is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Now, the assessee is in present appeal against the aforesaid findings of ld. CIT(A). 6. At the outset it is noticed that the assessee had submitted certain documents before the Ld. CIT(A), but was failed to make a request for admission of additional evidence in the prescribed manner. Accordingly, such evidences were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). The addition has been confirmed on the basis of other facts and material on record. Admittedly, the assessee had not furnished any submissions before the Ld. AO, thus evidently, Ld. CIT(A) had not heard the assessee, while rejecting the additional documents furnished before him.

ITA No. 8601/Mum/2025 Vijay H Shah Huf 7. Under such facts and circumstances, since the decision of Ld. CIT(A) was passed without considering the relevant documents in the form of additional evidence, we without adverting to the merits of case, are inclined to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assesseeashas been pronounced during the hearing which is not objected by both the parties. 8. While setting aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is directed to furnish all the necessary evidence, submission and explanations before the Ld. CIT(A) in the set aside appellate proceeding, under adherence to prescribed format, procedures and guidelines as per provisions of law. If the assessee found to be committingfurther defaults in compliances as directed herein, no further opportunities shall be granted. 9. In result the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms Order pronounced in the open court on 08-06-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 08-06-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS

ITA No. 8601/Mum/2025 Vijay H Shah Huf Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai