INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT V. ILESH B PONKIA HUF, SURAT

ITA 939/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the order of the CIT(A), which had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding a cash credit claimed as exempt long-term capital gains from the sale of shares in JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited. The Revenue contended that the shares were part of a manipulated stock scheme, thus the gains were not genuine. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had already filed a similar appeal, which had been decided earlier, leading to the dismissal of the current appeal as a duplicate.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825339 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: McDowell vs. CTO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital Gains; Bogus

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.939/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat Vs. Ilesh B Ponkia Huf, 21, Milan Bunglow, Opp. Valentine Cinema, Surat-395007 [PAN No.AAAHI6401H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Date of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘NFAC’), Delhi dated 01/07/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld CIT has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 84,90,075/- by the AO on account of cash credit u/s 69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT has erred in ignoring the facts brought on record establishing manipulation of share prices of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited as the upward movement of share price was not at all justified by the economic fundamental of company during the period of transactions by the assessee? Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.939/Srt/2024 ITO Vs. Ilesh B Ponkia HUF Asst. Year – 2015-16 - 2– iii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) l has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 84,90,075/- ignoring the fact that the stock prices of the companies are manipulated to provide the bogus LTCG. iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim ignoring the judicial pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell vs. CTO, wherein it was held that “colourable devises cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious method. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges”. v. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. vi. It is therefore prayed that the order of Ld. CIT (A) may kindly be set aside that of the Assessing Officer be restored. vii. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the Assessee has submitted that this a duplicate appeal filed by the Revenue. He has brought our attention to the appeal Form 36 in respect of ITA No. 901/SRT/2024 to state that the Revenue has already filed an appeal against the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 01.07.2024 pertaining to the assessment year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2015-16. It is further noted that the said appeal, ITA No. 901/SRT/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16 filed by the Revenue has already been decided vide order of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2025. In view of this, the present duplicate appeal filed by the Revenue against the same order of the CIT(A) is not maintainable and hence the same is hereby dismissed being not admitted. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 31/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 31/12/2025 Neelesh, Sr. PS TRUE COPY Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.939/Srt/2024 ITO Vs. Ilesh B Ponkia HUF Asst. Year – 2015-16 - 3– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat 1. Date of dictation 31.12.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 31.12.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .12.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 31.12.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 31.12.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 31.12.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "