JINESH PRAKASH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 3245/MUM/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Jinesh Prakash Thakkar ITO Ward 26(1)(1) Room no. 303, 3rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan A-74 Jalaram Ashish, बिधम/ Devi Dayal Road, C-41 to C-43, G Block Vs. Mulund (West), Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra 400080 Mumbai Maharashtra 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AIIPT-3788-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Deepak Jain – Ld. AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Sajit V Nair(Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 16-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 18-06.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 30.01.2026 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 16.05.2023. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.69.89 Lacs. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and

referred to various decisions of Tribunal to support the case of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, referred to the findings of lower authorities. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. The assessee field return of income on 30.07.2016. However, the case was reopened and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 19.05.2021 on the allegation that the assessee traded in shares of M/s Green Crest Financial Services Ltd. (in short ‘M/s Green Crest’) and booked bogus Long-Term Capital gains for Rs.71.20 Lacs. The allegation was based on statement of director of that entity i.e., Shri Sushil Parikh recorded us 132(4) wherein he admitted that this entity was a penny stock traded on the stock exchange. After the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Aggarwal (138 Taxmann.com 64). notice u/s 148 was again issued to the assessee and the assessee was directed to explain the said transaction. The assessee defended its claim and finished copy of share certificate, purchase bills of shares, bank statements and sale contract notes. The said gains were offered as capital gain but claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38). However, alleging that the said entity had no strong financials as well as future potential growth, there was no justification for such kind of investment by the assessee. Moreover, the shares were purchased in physical mode. Finally, the exempt capital gain claim of the assessee was rejected and sale consideration of Rs.69.89 Lacs was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the

action of Ld. AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. From the fact, it emerges that the assessee has purchased the shares of M/s Green Crest way back on 09.03.2012 and sold the same on 30.06.2015, 10.07.2015 & 29.07.2025. The assessee has held the shares for substantial period of more than 3 years. The purchase consideration was paid through banking channels and the purchases are duly supported by purchase contract notes (Page No.51 of the paper book). The sale of scrip is duly evidenced by sale contact notes and the sale consideration has been received through banking channels only. The sale has taken place on recognized stock exchange and the assessee has duly paid Securities Transaction tax (STT) on sale transactions. The sale is duly evidenced by broker ledger as placed on record. On these facts, it could be well said that the onus of the assessee, as required under law, stood discharged and it was the onus of revenue to refute the claim of the assessee. However, the same was not done. The whole basis of rejecting the claim is mere allegation that the assessee dealt in a penny stock whose financials were not strong enough. However, the statement of director of M/s Green Crest does not specifically implicate the assessee. It is trite law that no addition could be made on mere presumptions and assumptions. The Ld. AO has not brought on record any evidence of cash exchange in lieu of sale consideration. Therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained in law as held in various decisions of Tribunal relating to same script. The copies of

the same have been placed on record. In the latest decision of Nagpur Bench of Tribunal in Sacchanand Hiralal Lalwani (ITA No.388/Nag/2024; dated 15.04.2026), the bench referred to various other decisions and finally deleted the impugned additions on identical facts. This case law deals with the case of trading in M/s Green Crest only. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we would delete the impugned addition. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4. The appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on 18th June, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANKIT, PS Dated: 18.06.2026 आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT 4. ववभागीयप्रवतवनवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT MUMBAI