RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

ITA 1000/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable as the assessee had provided documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the transactions were not bogus and the assessee had complied with the necessary documentation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an HUF, claimed long-term capital gains (LTCG) on the sale of shares of Yamini Investment Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these gains as unexplained income under Section 68, based on information about bogus LTCG from penny stocks. The assessee provided documentary evidence to support the transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the long-term capital gains on sale of shares of Yamini Investment Ltd. were bogus and unexplained income, and if the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CA &, Shri Anand Mundra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. AR
Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 06.08.2025

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 08.01.2025 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by the AO u/s 2 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai.

69A of the Act. Therefore, we decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

3.

Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee relied upon the detailed written submissions fil

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →