TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following grounds of appeal: 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)"] grossly erred in overlooking fundamental aspects and precedents established in the Appellant's own case. It is submitted that, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, under identical facts and circumstances involving similar allegations of suspicious share sale transactions and alleged penny stock activities, the Appellant's case was subjected to complete scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), wherein a NII, assessment order was passed. 2. The authorities below failed to appreciate that for AY 2015-16, upon reopening the assessment under Section 148 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant further submits that the Ld. AO has inconsistently and arbitrarily accepted a similar explanation provided by the Appellant's son for identical allegations and for the same assessment year. This selective approach of the Ld. AO without coherent reasoning demonstrates a prejudiced approach, thereby vitiating the entire proceeding and rendering the addition unsustainable in law. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the arbitrary action of the Ld. AO without independently examining the merits, reasons, or the substantial submissions presented by the Appellant. Such mechanical affirmation without independent reasoning violates judicial norms established through various precedents. 7. The impugned addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6;n 15.09.2016. Subsequently the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act for the reason that appellant had made an unexplained investment of Rs. 11,27,450/-. Since the assessee remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making addition of Rs. 11,27,450/- u/s. 69B of the Act, totalling to Rs. 15,21,090/- as income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: "...The appellant has contended that the large share purchases were made "on behalf of his clients" and that he was merely acting as a 'broker. However, in support of such a claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls such as names/addresses of alleged clients, details of on-sale or instructions from clients, or confirmations from those clients have been furnished. Merely stating that 'I am a broker and this year's facts are the same as earlier would not discharge the statutory burden of proof. Further, the record does not contain verifiable share ledgers, contract notes, or commission receipts that would clarify how the transactions were truly undertaken for third parties and not for personal investment. Without such evidence, the default presumption is that the appellant is the actual owner and that he has funded these share investments. Another argument raised by the appellant is that 'similar' facts in other assessment yea....