ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
26.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 2, Gurugram [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds:
GROUND I
A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred adding sale proceeds on sale of alleged penny stock of Rs.
14,77,822/- u/s 68 of the Act as Cash Credit.

B. On the fac and CITA faile i. The AO m material or ev the scheme o examination.
ii. The asses registered sto the STT, duly payments for iii. The Asses almost 4 ye purchases of iv. The asses relevant docu broker ledger law.
V. The AO ha capital gain o the gain twice
C. The appel
14,77,822/- m
GROUND II
A. On the fac adding Rs. 2
alleged bogus
B. On the fac and CITA faile i) The additi conjecture wit ii) The asses towards the p iii) The asses
69C. In the ab
Sh cts and circumstances of the case and in ed to appreciate that:
made the addition without providing a videncing the alleged involvement of the of things and did not provide opportun ssee has made purchases and sold the ock broker on a registered stock exchang y reflected in the Dmat stataments, and h purchases via proper banking channel.
ssee is a genuine investor who held th ears, and made meagre profit of Rs.3
Rs.11,76,745/- working out to 25.58%.
ssee has discharged his onus by subm uments such as contract notes, dema r and bank statement, thus addition u/s as added whole of sales proceeds U/s68
of Rs.3,01,078/- already offered to tax, e.
llant, therefore, prays that the addition may please be deleted.
cts and circumstances of the case, the CI
29,556/ u/s 69C of the Act towards com s Long term capital gains.
cts and circumstances of the case and in ed to appreciate that:
ion is made by the AO based on su thout any evidence.
ssee has neither paid nor received any purchase of shares.
ssee did not claim any expenses to be bsence of any claim addition U/s 69C is b hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
2
n law the AO any tangible assessee in nity for cross e shares via ge by paying has made all he shares for 301078/ on mitting all the at statement,
68 is bad at 8 ignoring the thus taxing made of Rs
IT(A) erred in mmission on n law the AO urmises and commission covered U/s bad at law.

C. The appell unexplained e
2. The appeal challenges
Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the A through Long-Term Capital G
Ltd. (“AFSIL”), treated by the 2.1 Briefly stated, fa return of income for declaring total in information was rece tax Department, Mu abnormal rise in sha
“M/s Action Financi recorded reasons to issued notice u/s 14
return of income decl
2.2 During the co assessee stated that Ltd. were purchased other shares for a su in the year 2011 for that shares were not or amalgamation rou
2.3 The Assessing O operandi adopted in Sh ant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs.
expenditure must please be deleted.
additions made in reassessment under Sectio
Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed
Gain (LTCG) in the scrip of M/s Action Finan e Revenue as a “penny stock”.
acts of the case are that the a r the year under consideration ncome at Rs.16,81,040/-.
ived from the Investigation Wing umbai that assessee had taken are prices of a ‘penny’ stock co ial Services India Ltd.” The As believe that income escaped a 48 of the Act. In response, th laring original income.
ourse of the reassessment pr shares of M/s Action Financia in regular course through a br um of Rs.11,76,745/- in the yea a sum of Rs.14,77,822/-. The t purchased through any prefer ute.
Officer, however, referred to the cases of money laundering th hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
3
29,556/- as ons 68 and 69C of the d unaccounted income cial Services (India) ssessee filed its on 26.09.2011
Subsequently, g of the Income- n benefit of the ompany namely ssessing Officer assessment and e assessee filed roceedings, the al Services India roker along with ar 2007 and sold assessee stated rential allotment e general modus hrough so-called

"penny stock" compa involves transfer of beneficiaries at a allotments or off-mar shares are artificially from 500 to 1000
reaches the targeted which are purchased providers," who delib such shares collapse at nominal values. A chain of allotment subsequent offloadin of operators.
2.4 With specific re
Pvt. Ltd., the Assessi had witnessed an 01.04.2007 to ₹48.90
31.10.2008, and onc
Assessing Officer re company for variou commensurate or sub business activities w the share price. In Sh anies. It was observed that the shares of such companies t nominal price, either throu rket transactions. Thereafter, th y rigged and inflated manifold times the acquisition price.
d level, the beneficiaries offlo d by a group of persons, refer berately incur losses. Eventuall e and the subsequent purchaser
According to the Assessing Off t of shares, manipulation o ng is orchestrated and controlle ference to the scrip of Action Fi ing Officer recorded that the val unusual fluctuation—rising f
0 on 11.01.2008, thereafter fall ce again rising to ₹49.50 on 2
eproduced the financial resul us years and noted that bstantial change in its financial which could justify such a shar n the absence of any funda hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
4
e usual practice to the intended ugh preferential he prices of such d, often ranging
Once the price oad the shares, rred to as "exit ly, the prices of rs are left to sell fficer, the entire of prices, and ed by a handful inancial Services lue of its shares from ₹1.54 on ling to ₹7.70 on 24.03.2011. The lts of the said there was no l performance or rp escalation in amental factors supporting the abnor the assessee had premeditated and transactions. The r reproduced as under “16. This is a Financial Ser genuine LTCG that share pr from Rs. 1.54
dipped to Rs.
24th March, 2
not genuine a mentioned ab share price ri had purchase assessee has planned mann
2.5 The Assessing recommendations of and inquiries condu that the transaction nature of accommo
Officer treated the unexplained cash cr
Act. In addition there the rate of 2%, amou unexplained expendit
Sh rmal rise, the Assessing Officer introduced his unaccounted structured manner through relevant finding of the Asses
:
a direct evidence that assessee's share rvices (India) Ltd was artificially hiked
G to you along with other beneficiaries. I rice of M/s Action Financial Services (I
4. on 1st April, 2007 to Rs. 48.9 on 11th
.7.7 on 31st Oct., 2008 and rose again
2011. All these are indications that the L and this is also a circumstantial evidence.
bove it is clear that the assessee had prio igging of M/s Action Financial Services ed them. Under these circumstances, I s introduced his income from undisclose ner through colourable device.”
g Officer, relying upon the f the Investigation Wing arising ucted on various brokers and ns entered into by the assess odation entries. Consequently, entire sale consideration of ₹
redit within the meaning of Se eto, a further sum representing unting to ₹29,556/-, was also br ture under Section 69C of the A hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
5
r concluded that income in a the aforesaid ssing Officer is e of M/s Action to create non-
It was : noticed
India) Ltd. rose
Jan. 2008 and to Rs. 49.5 on LTCG earned is . From the facts or knowledge of (India) Ltd and I hold that the ed sources in a findings and g out of search operators, held see were in the the Assessing
₹14,77,822/- as ection 68 of the g commission at rought to tax as Act.

The AO in hi
Directorate of the AO has 01.04.2007 to Rs. 7.7 on 31
rejecting the transactions evidences and term capital g
Here, it is imp transactions creditworthine
Necessarily a unaccounted loss to avoid colour of gen collected by t case stare at company wh soundness. T establish the Here, the app not and canno he had dealt such was the the price rise claim LTCG o cast upon the revenue to pr that their clai produced by documents, th lost sight of a the onus was whose shares which is und
Therefore, un proof, the add
The appellant has, however evidences/arg instant appea which he dea genuineness authority - so Sh is order has discussed the finding of th f Investigation, Mumbai In respect of this p mentioned that share price moved from o a high of Rs. 48.9 on 11.01.2008 and t
1.10.2008 and then rose to 49.5 on 24.0
e averments of the appellant that were genuine transactions with all d the appellant has suffered loss instead gains, the AO has held that- portant to mention that it is very naive to entered into through banking ch ess, identity and genuineness of the accommodation entries are an exercise money or reducing profit by buying exem d the legitimate tax liability and therefo nuinity. The documentary and circumsta the AO and the human conduct and prob t the face of the appellant as to why it hich did not have a proven track reco
Therefore, a higher burden lies on th e genuineness of the transaction under pellant has miserably failed to do so. The ot dispute the fact that the shares of the c with were insignificant in value prior to e situation, it is the appellant who had to e was genuine and consequently, they on their transaction. Until and unless the e appellant is discharged, the onus does rove otherwise. The appellant cannot be im has to be examined only based upon it namely bank details/statements, the he details of the D-mat Account, etc. The an important fact that when a claim is m s on him to prove that credit worthiness o s he had dealt with, the genuineness of doubtedly alarming that to within a shor nless and until the appellant discharges dition made by the assessing officer can t r, failed to provide any reasonable, cog guments/contentions advanced by him al so as to prove the creditworthiness of alt in and also to counter the AO's decisio of the transaction to the satisfaction of omething which the material on record d hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
7
he report of the particular scrip, m Rs. 1.54 on then fell back to 03.2011.Finally the impugned l documentary of earning long believe that the hannel proves e transactions.
of introducing mpt LTC gain /
ore, to give it a antial evidences babilities in this invested in the ord of financial he appellant to r consideration.
e assessee does company which their trading. If o establish that are entitled to e initial burden not shift to the e heard to say the documents e purchase/sell e appellant has made for LTCG, of the company of the price rise rt span of time.
such burden of nnot be faulted.
gent and valid m even in the the company in on in respect of f a fact-finding does not justify and somethin enough mater transaction. G light of groun
Therefore, it h purchasing th without know bogus, not ge entry of exem
It is held tha shares for le amount fell w the assessee income. Furth operandi give
The appellant on conjecture the informatio availing exem that in the ins
The Investiga in dealing
Investigation from the indiv penny stocks significant fa absolute anon
The endeavou adopted and have benefite impugned as conducted in operandi of a providing of fundamentals traded, price
Action Financ
Based on tho concept of "w taken into co human condu probabilities made by the in taking note appellant.
Sh ng which is clearly missing. On the con rial on record to negate the claim of gen
Genuineness of the transaction is to be e nd realities and that is precisely what the has been rightly held by the AO that the he shares of M/s Action Financial Se wing the financial credentials of the compa enuine and with an intention to buy an mpt LTCG to evade the legitimate tax liab at the aforesaid transaction of purchase esser amount and the sale of the sha within the ambit of adventure in the natu had profited which comes under the am her, the findings of the A.O. are in line w en in the Investigation report of the Investi t has further contended that the AO has es and surmises and without controverti on or details filed by him in support o mption u/s.10(38) of the Act. It is import stant case, the appellant had dealt in pen ation Wing has unearthed the modus ope such penny stock scrip. The inform
Wing states that the investigation has n viduals but it has commenced who had s, concept of working backwards. T actor to be remembered. Therefore, th nymity of the assessee in the process o ur of the department is to examine the "m in that process now, seek to identify the ed on account of such "modus operandi".
ssessment order has highlighted the such penny stock after describing the accommodation entry by way of bogus ca f bogus capital gain entries, lack s of the company of which shares the movement, jack up of share price of the cial Services (1) Ltd etc.
ose foundational facts, the department h working backward" leading to the appella nsideration the surrounding circumstanc uct of a prudent investor and the pre that may spill over to negate the claim appellant. Therefore, the department wa e of the prevailing circumstances to dec hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
8
ntrary, there is uineness of the examined in the e AO has done.
e transaction of ervices (1) Ltd.
any, was sham, accommodation bility ultimately.
of penny stock ares for higher ure of trade and mbit of business with the modus igation Wing.
made addition ing or negating of his claim for tant to mention nny stock scrip.
erandi involved mation of the not commenced d dealt with the This is a very here has been of investigation.
modus operandi"
assessees who
. The AO in the e investigation general modus apital gain and k of financial appellant has e company M/s has adopted the ant. The AO has ces, the normal eponderance of m for exception as fully justified cide against the All these fact shares giving
Supreme Cou appellant ha transactions overwhelming placed on jud
Ltd. where it and probe d appellant an whether asse bank stateme provided by a considered in Telecom India etc. is not suff
The latest de
Swati Bajaj &
as under:
"S. 68: Cas increased va established-O
Addition as c
S.10(38), 45,
The assesse
Chemicals an 14.08.2012. S long term ca
29,23,500/- S to 07.12.2013
for Rs. 28,23
exempt u/s. 1
a short span sell the share general mark investigation assessed the appeal of the passed a com favouring the Court Honour establish the financials of banking chan
Sh ts give credence to unreliability of entire g rise to such capital gains ratio laid do urt in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT cas as received amount through bank cannot be treated as genuine in g evidences put forward by Revenue. R dgment in case of Nipun Builders and D was held that it is duty of Tribunal to ocumentary evidence in depth, in light nd other surrounding circumstances in essee is liable to provisions of section 68 o ents, demat a/c. statement, STT paid, bro appellant to prove genuineness of transa n view of judgment of Hon'ble Court in ca a Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was stated that b fficient enough to discharge burden.
cision of the Calcutta High Court in the & Others which is in favour of the Revenu sh Credits-Penny Stock-Capital gain alue of about 2823%-Genuineness of pr
Onus on the assessee-Order of Tribuna cash credit is affirmed- Revision is held
263]
ee had purchased 50,000 shares of nd Investment Ltd for Rs.1,00,000/- on 1
Soon after the expiry of the period to bec apital gains, the assessee sold those
Sales were effected during the period fr
3 and the long term capital gains (LTCG)
3,500/-. The assessee claimed the ca
10(38) of the Act. The Assessing officer h to time of 17 to 21 months, the Assess es with increased value of about 2823% th ket trend was recessive. Relying on wing the Assessing Officer denied the e receipt u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A)
Assessee. On appeal the Income-tax App mmon order in 90 appeals pertaining to assessees. Revenue has filed appeals b rable High Court held that the onus is on genuineness of the price hike. Merely dem the company, volume of trade, transa nnels, inter alia, will not suffice. The A hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
9
e transaction of own by Hon'ble se. Though the king channels, n presence of Reliance is also Developers Pvt.
scratch surface t of conduct of n order to see or not. Similarly oker's statement action cannot be ase of Pratham bank statement, case of PCIT v.
ue is discussed ns-Shares with rice hike to be al is reversed- to be valid. [S.
f the Surabhi
16.03.2012 and come eligible for shares for Rs.
rom 04.12.2013
was computed apital gains as held that within see managed to hat to when the the report of exemption and dismissed the pellate Tribunal o penny stocks before the High the assessee to monstrating the actions through ssessee has to prove that th
High Court a setting aside the Assessing error both on juri iction b
(Arising out o
2014-15) (ITA
Bajaj and Ors
Hence, consi preponderanc view of the re gain has to b discussion, a hereby dismi
3. On these facts,
(i) Whether, on established a s transactions an entry operation the (ii) Whether th generic “modus specific incrim counter-parties—
(iii) Whether the 69C can be sust
4. We have heard the relevant material alleged ‘penny’ stock
Sh e price of the share was not manipulate lso held that the Tribunal committed a s the orders of the CIT(A) who had affirme g Officer and equally the Tribunal comm n law and fact in interfering with the by the Commissioner under Section 26
of ITA No. 2623/ Kol/2018 dt. 20-6-20
A No. 6 of 2022 dated June 14, 2022).
s. (Cal.) (HC).
idering the facts of the assessee's ce of probabilities is against the assess eliance made on the above case laws, th be treated as fictitious. In view of the a all the grounds of appeal raised in th issed.”
the questions that arise are tha the material on record, the D sufficient nexus between the a nd any alleged price-rigging/a so as to justify addition unde entire sale e approach of resting the add s operandi” and historic price inating material qua this as —meets the legal sta e estimated commission addition tained absent evidence of any ou rival submissions of the parti s on record. It is no doubt true k transactions, Hon’ble Courts hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
10
ed. Honourable serious error in ed the orders of mitted a serious assumption of 63 of the Act.
019 (SMC) (AY.
PCIT v. Swati case and the see and also in he entire capital above facts and his regard are at :
Department has ssessee’s AFSIL accommodation- er Section 68 of proceeds; dition solely on charts—without ssessee or his andard; and n under Section utgo.
ies and perused that in cases of have repeatedly held that the test of h preponderance of pro of contract notes, ba not by itself establish
Prasad More (82 ITR
SC); PCIT v. Swati Ba is equally settled tha legal proof, and add operandi or broad-b linking the assessee
Shaw & Bros. v. CIT,
87 ITR 349 (SC)). Sw penny-stock cases manipulated and the explanation. The Inco additions based mer nexus must be establ
5. We find that in th
Action Financial Se
23.10.2007); Rs.29.2
(purchased on 15.11
through share broke filed details contract
15 to 17. The asses
Sh human conduct, surrounding cir obability must be applied, and m ank statements or demat accou h genuineness of the transactio
R 540, SC); Sumati Dayal v. CIT ajaj & Ors. (Cal HC, 2022)). At th at suspicion, however strong, ca ditions cannot be sustained on brush findings without any c e to such alleged manipulatio
37 ITR 271 (SC); Daulat Ram R wati Bajaj (Cal HC, 2022) upho where the price surge is e assessee fails to offer a plausib ome-Tax Authorities are not per rely on the scrip being tainted lished.
his case assessee had purchased ervices Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs.31.85
27 (purchased on 25.10.2007)
1.2007) along with shares of ot ers M/s SB Securities Pvt. Ltd notes which are available on Pa ssee also filed a copy of dema hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
11
rcumstances and mere production unt entries does n. (CIT v. Durga
T (214 ITR 801, he same time, it annot substitute general modus cogent material on. (Umacharan awatmull v. CIT, lds additions in demonstrably ble, fact-specific rmitted to make d; a fact-specific d shares of M/s
(purchased on ; and Rs.27.24
ther companies, d. The assessee aper Book pages at statement to support that shares copy of such demat claimed to have sold
October 2010 to M
Rs.14,77,822/-.We fi
AO and sustaining by circumstances, hum
The Ld. CIT(A) has creditworthiness of t opinion that while examine the credit according to his kno chose to invest in th risk oriented activity profit or sometime m relied on finding of t assessee invested, wa operators but neithe pointed out any spe operated the shares of the assessee for through those operat
5.1 The Assessing O statement of the Sh s were purchased through stoc statement is placed on record the shares in the financial yea
March 2011 for a total sale c ind that the basis of the additio y the Ld. CIT(A) is keeping in vi an conduct and preponderance firstly, held that assessee fail the company in which he inve investing the assessee was n tworthiness of the company.
owledge of the share market fo he said company. The investm y and therefore, it may result in ay result into loss. Secondly, th the Investigation Wing that the as operated by a group of accom r the Assessing Officer nor the cific search carried out on the of the M/s Action Financials, n obtaining benefit of long ter tors has been brought on record
Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) has searches which were carried hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
12
ck exchange. A d. The assessee ar 2010-11 from consideration of on made by the iew surrounding e of probability.
led to establish sted. We are of not required to The assessee r last 20 years, ent activity is a nto sometime in he Ld. CIT(A) has e scrip in which mmodation entry e Ld. CIT(A) has e operators who nor involvement rm capital gain d.
referred general d out by the Investigation Wing K operator who contro
M/s Action Financ circumstances, we fin has reported that sh to Rs.44 without cor assessee purchased sold in the price ran period of the price
Assessing Officer as premise that the mot relevant surrounding such presumption inasmuch as, after transaction has in f
Further, neither the any direct link of the the prices of the com case of penny stoc preferential allotmen case assessee has p normal course of his the contract note an the Paper Book. Fu approximately four y
Sh

Kolkata without any specific olled and managed the penny cial India Ltd. As regard t nd that the Assessing Officer an hares of the company were rigge rresponding financials but in t the shares in the price range o nge of Rs.44 which does not rigging from Rs.1.54 to RS.4
well as the learned CIT(A) pr tive of earning huge profit consti g circumstances of human con is wholly misplaced in the r allowing the benefit of i fact resulted in a loss and no AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has bro e assessee with any of the oper mpany. Further, the AO held th ck companies are made nor nt or amalgamation route but purchased the shares on stoc s trading through his regular br nd demat statement of which a rther in this case the holding years as compared to short ho hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
13
mention of the stock company to surrounding nd the Ld. CIT(A) ed from Rs.1.54
the instant case of the Rs.37 and match with the 4. Further, the roceeded on the itutes one of the nduct. However, present case, indexation, the ot in any profit.
ought on record rator who rigged hat purchases in rmally through in the instant ck exchange in roker, a copy of are available on g period is also olding period of slightly more than o the modus operandi scrip is tainted; the undisclosed income a cash credit.
5.2 On a careful co we find that neither t been able to establis the alleged operators of the shares of the c on record to demo participation, or even mere reliance on gen without linking the s cannot form the basi proposition in law th place of proof. In the involvement in, or c addition sustained m upheld. Our conclu summarised as unde
(i) Mismatch between
Sh ne year mentioned by the Asse
. We are of the opinion that m assessee cannot be held guilt and treating sale consideration nsideration of the material avai the Assessing Officer nor the lea sh any direct nexus between th who are stated to have manipu company. No cogent evidence ha onstrate that the assessee n knowledge of such alleged pr neral reports or the conduct o ame to the assessee through cr is for drawing adverse inference hat suspicion, however strong, c absence of any material to show connivance with, the purported merely on presumptions and surm usion on facts of the case er:
n alleged rigging cycle and asses hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
14
essing Officer in merely particular ty of converting as unexplained ilable on record, arned CIT(A) has he assessee and ulated the prices as been brought had any role, rice rigging. The of third parties, redible evidence, e. It is a settled cannot take the w the assessee’s d operators, the mises cannot be and in law is see’s trade:

The AO’s rigging nar
~₹49 within 2007-08
March 2011. The as ₹27–₹37—not at nom
2010-11 at ₹34–₹44. a relatively elevated pattern—acquiring a routes and exiting at mark—is absent. T inconsistent with the AO and cited modus
(ii)
Absence of asse
Neither the assessm operator, exit provide assessee; (b) any stat trail/cash-back. The of rigging” is conclus there is no confronte cross-examination of (iii) Erroneous burd
The ld
CIT(A) fa
“creditworthiness of the “genuineness of exchange through a Sh rrative stresses a meteoric rise
8, a crash in late-2008, and ssessee purchased shares in O minal or preferential prices—an Thus, the assessee’s entry price d range; the alleged classic at throwaway prices via off t many-fold increases shortly af
The holding period of about e typical “buy-rig-exit” cycle em operandi.
essee-specific incriminating mate ment order nor the ld CIT(A) id er, or broker-level colluder conn tement implicating the assessee finding that “the assessee had ory. The Investigation Wing repo ed material qua this assessee, f persons allegedly involved.
den cast by the ld CIT(A):
aults the assessee for not the company” whose shares w price rise”. In a secondary m
SEBI-registered broker and dem hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
15
e from ₹1.54 to a later rise by Oct–Nov 2007 at nd sold in F.Y.
e was already at accommodation fline/preferential fter the one-year four years is mphasized by the erial:
dentified (a) any nected with this ; or (c) any cash prior knowledge orts are generic; nor any offer of t proving the were traded and market trade on mat mechanism, the assessee is not strength as a condi manipulation in the showing the assesse requiring the assesse permitted in law.
(iv) Use of human p
The principles in Dayal(supra) permit they do not permit surrounding circums is on a “penny stoc price, and that so background suspicio addition fails the tes
Rawatmull(supra).
(v)
Effect of Swati B

The Hon’ble Calcutta
(a) the price rise is ex shown to be part of contemporaneous in case involves purch modest sale range, a The ratio is therefore
Sh t required to establish the is tion precedent. The Departmen case, but failed to produce s ee’s participation or knowledg ee to justify market-wide price f probabilities—limits:
Durga
Prasad
More(supra) testing a story against huma replacing proof with presump stances pressed by the AO/CIT ck” list, that its fundamentals ome persons may have rig on. Without a linking fact to th st in Umacharan Shaw(supra) a Bajaj(supra) a High Court decision supports xtraordinary and inexplicable, (b f the arrangement, and (c) the criminating material. In contra hase at already-elevated prices and no assessee-specific incrimi distinguishable on facts.
hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
16
suer’s financial nt alleges price specific material ge; absent that, formation is not ) and Sumati an conduct, but ption. Here, the T(A)—that AFSIL did not justify gged it—remain he assessee, the and Daulat Ram
Revenue where b) assessees are e record reveals ast, the present s, long holding, nating material.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Sh e set aside the finding of lower made by the Assessing Officer.
ee are allowed.
he appeal of the assessee is allow ounced in the open Court on 2
d/-
S
GOSAIN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu hri Anand Mellaram Issrani
17
authorities and The grounds of wed.
25/08/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai