CHINMAY YOGESHKUMAR AGRAWAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The Ld. CITIA) has erred in not appreciating that the Ld.AO has obtained approval for issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act from the authority designated as 'Range 3(1), Ahmedabad'. However, in terms of section 151 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was mandatorily required to obtain approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or, in their absence, from the Chief Commissioner or Director General. The approval dated 31.03.2021, having been taken from a subordinate/junior authority, is therefore in clear violation of the statutory mandate. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under section 148 under the amended provisions of the Act, as well as the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 1448 dated 31.03.2022, are illegal, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed in light of the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant."

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not properly considering various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant in the Synopsis of Arguments uploaded on the ITBA Portal on 17.10.2025. I. Addition on account of alleged cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act, Rs. 58,61,712/-

The order passed under Section 250 on 27.10.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the addition of Rs. 58,61,712/- made under Section 68 of the Act on account of alleged cash credits arising from the sale of shares of Kushal Ltd. and treated as accommodation entries by the Assessing Officer

The Ld. CITIA) has erred in law and on facts in disregarding the detailed submissions, supporting evidence, and relevant documents furnished by the appellant, all of which clearly established that the transactions pertaining to the purchase and sale of shares of Kushal Ltd. were genuine.

The Ld.AO has grievously erred in law as well as on facts in failing to consider and appreciate the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, including binding decisions of the Hon'ble Juri ictional Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT in the Synopsis of Arguments uploaded on the ITBA Portal on 17.10.2025. These decisions were squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case and ought to have been duly examined and followed. The non-consideration of such binding precedents renders the assessment order bad in law and unsustainable."

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that though the Ld.CIT(A) refers to the written submission filed on 17.10.2025, which is running to 29 pages with 7 Exhibits. However, the same was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed the addition on Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’) on the transactions of Kushal Group shares of Rs.58,61,712/- as bogus cash credit of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) neither considered the grounds of appeal on the reopening of assessment as well as merits of the case. The assessee was never given any opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal. Thus, Ld. Counsel requested to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).