ROMIL RASIK MEGHANI,WALKESHWAR ROAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 13.05.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 22.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 04.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer erred in passing the order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act A.Y. 2014-15 Romil Rasik Meghani without providing the details / evidences / reasons recorded as referred in the assessment order.

2. ADDITION OF INCOME BY THE A.O BAD IN LAW 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition u/s 69A of Income Tax Acct, 1961 amounting Rs. 53,26,700/-made by Assessing Officer without considering the fact and circumstances of the case 2. The Appellant submits that he has dealt with the Share "Excel Castronics Ltd." However, the assumptions and explanation provided by the officer in the order are baseless. The Appellant has dealt with the same on a recognized stock exchange, payment done through account payee cheque and Securities transaction tax was paid. The explanations provided by the assessing officer that the company is penny stock is not correct. Assessing Officer & CIT (Appeals) unable to prove that the Assessee was involved in the manipulation of Stock. The transactions are carried out through recognized brokers, and payments were received by account payee cheques, making the transactions genuine. Assessing Officer is unable to establish the link between the Assessee & Directors of the M/s Excel Castronics Ltd. The Appellant had invested within an intent of Investment and has held the share for a long period of time. Accordingly, the additions made u/s 69A is incorrect.”

A.Y. 2014-15 Romil Rasik Meghani 5. Before us, also the assessee has sought several adjournments, and therefore, his last adjournment application filed on 13th May has been rejected. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to Ld. CIT(A) for giving a fresh opportunity to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).