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

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.”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 9,42,900/-. On the basis of information received by the Ld. AO on the insight portal of the department regarding bogus long-term capital gains of Rs. 53,26,700/- shown by the assessee from trading in the scrip of M/s Excel Castronics Ltd., alleged to be penny stock, the case was reopened. Assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 62,69,600/- u/s 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act as the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details before Ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee did not respond to repeated notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). However, in response to the last notice dated 14.11.2024, the assessee requested for an adjournment, which was not considered and Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal vide order dated 04.12.2024. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2014-15

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). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2025. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER