ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raichand Parasmal Chokshi, Mumbai
In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed
ITA 1486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, 305, Ashirwad Building, Lalabaug 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaapc6486C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, Huf Lalabaug 305, Ashirwad Building, Mumbai 400012 Vs. 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaahr1005A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Umang Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are In The Case Of An Individual & Huf Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- Ay 2017-18 24/1060184522(1) Dated 29.01.2024 For Individual & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064573907(1), Dated 02.05.2024 For The Huf, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.05.2023 & 21.04.2023, Respectively For Individual & Huf For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Is By The Individual & That In Ita No. 3374/Mum/2024 Is By The Huf With The Present Individual As Its Karta. Common Issue Is Involved In Both The Appeals By The Revenue, Raising Identical Grounds Except For Variation In The Quantum Of Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Grounds Taken By The Revenue In The Case Of Individual In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:
For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 68
…al gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section 68” 11. Further, revenue in its ground of appeal no. 7 has contended that issue is a covered matter by the decision in the case of Swati Bajaj & others v. PCIT [2022] 446 ITR 56 (Cal). In the said decision, it was held that assessee had to establish the genuineness of rise in price of shares within a short period of time that too, when general market trend was recessive. However, we note that there are several decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as stated supra which are in favour of the assessee. Accordingly,…
