PRADEEP H. KEDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-9(2)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pradeep H. Kedia Plot No.8, Sagar Jyoti, 6th Road, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai - 400056 Maharashtra [PAN: ABJPK1391C] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 9(2)(1), Mumbai 461, Aaykar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020 …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Mahesh Pamnani Date Conclusion of hearing : 20.01.2025 Pronouncement of order : 21.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. 1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order dated 28/12/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2015-2016.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred Assessment Year: 2015-2016 in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of treating the transaction of sale of shares of M/s Parag Shilpa Investment Limited as unexplained cash credits and making addition of Rs. 27,15,550/- under section 68 of the Act, disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case; inter- alia the following: a) That the explanations, submission, documentary evidences filed by the Appellant were disregarded and not refuted. b) That Appellant was a long term regular investor and had transacted in various other scrips. c) That the impugned addition was based on uncorroborated materials and statements of third parties. d) That the judicial precedents supporting the case of the Appellant were disregarded. e) That the impugned additions were merely based on surmises and conjectures.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of not granting the exemption of Rs. 27,15,550/- for long terms capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act on sale of listed equity shares sold through recognized stock exchange which has duly been subjected to security transaction tax (S.T.T.).

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and making addition of Rs. 27,15,550/- and disallowing the claim for exemption o Long Term Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act merely on the basis of alleged statements of third parties, without providing the copies of such statements and without providing the opportunity to cross-examine such parties (even when specifically asked for by the Appellant), thus violating the principles of natural justice as upheld by Honorable Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006) and Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT AIR 1980 SC 2117.”

3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing it was noted that the 2 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Appellant/Assessee had placed on record copy of Form 1 DTVSV 2024 e-filed under the ‘The Direct Tax – Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme’, 2024 on 16/01/2025 having e-filing Acknowledgment Number 828307010160125 and submitted that the Assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme - 2024. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the Assessee to revive the same in case the application filed by the Assessee does not result in settlement of dispute by way of filing miscellaneous application before the Tribunal within the period prescribed.