TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per the return of income filed was at Rs. 15,37,355/-. The addition of Rs. 2,30,806/- was made as unaccounted income by virtue of para 8,9 & 10 of the aforesaid assessment order. That the aforesaid "Assessment order" is dated 24.09.2019 which is herein after referred to as the "Impugned Assessment Order". 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid "Impugned Assessment Order" prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the "Impugned Order" has dismissed the 1st appeal of the Assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal were as under:- "8.0 Decision:- 8.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal and the submissions made by the appellant in this case. Accordingly, the appellant has raised 10 grounds of appeal. It is seen that Ground no. 1 is general in nature and doesn't require a separate adjudication and will be taken care while deciding the issue of addition vide ground no-7 taken by the appellant. The other grounds of appeal are taken sequentially below. 8.2 Vide Ground No. 2 and 3 are related. Vide these grounds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her seen that all the submission made by the appellant has been duly taken care of and placed on record and has been considered by the A.O before ha has arrived at the conclusion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd in civil appeal no-5728 of 2021 (SC)] has ruled that minor procedural lapses do not invalidate an order if reasonable opportunity was provided. Since, the A.O has provided various opportunities to the appellant and has also considered the submission made by the appellant, the ground of the appellant is not valid and hence the same is dismissed. 8.4 Vide Ground No. 5 and 6, the appellant has submitted that written submission has been ignored by the A.O. The primary contention of the appellant in this regard is that AO erred in not taking cognizance of detailed written submissions placed on record along with all the documentary evidences supporting in the course of impugned proceedings and giving sweeping observation on the case laws relied upon by the appellant without specifying how they are distinguished. The second contetion is that the order was passed without cognizance of the stipulated period in which assessee could provide her subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not impact the correctness of the assessment order. Further, the department has launched a portal for easy, transparent and effective communication with the taxpayers and order and notices are bring served on that portal which is a legally complaint system. Hence, there is no merit in the ground raised by the appellant and hence the same is dismissed 8.7 Vide Ground no. 09, the appellant has summitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was no undisclosed income as the same had been already declared under IDS, 2016 and all taxes on the same were paid by the assessee. Since no income was undisclosed, no penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) shall be initiated. I have gone through the ground taken by the appellant. This ground pertains to initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961, Since, the penalty is separate proceeding and penalty has not been levied in the case of the appellant, the ground taken by the appellant is pre-matured at this stage, therefore, need not to be adjudicated. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o: 1. DLEETE the addition of Rs. 2,30,806/- made to income of the appellant. 2. Quash the reassessment order dated 24.09.2019. 3. Accept the returned income as filed by the appellant. 4. Any other relief that may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon. Tribunal." 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 19.03.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before us & inter alia contended that the "Impugned Order" is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It therefore deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 96. An affidavit dated 17.03.2026 is too placed on record in support of the condonation of delay. The Ld. AR then contended that the registry of this Tribunal has pointed out the delay of 93 days in presenting the instant second appeal under the Act; whereas according to the assessee delay is of 72 days. The date of the "Impugned Order" is 17.02.2025 whereas present appeal was filed on 11.07.2025. With regard to the delay it was submitted that the assessee does not possess much knowledge or understanding of computers, internet technology & Income Tax La....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oI pages 42 to 44 of PB]. It was then submitted that the relevant year under consideration for purchase transaction is 2011-12 & not 2012-13. Our attention was then invited to PB page 81 & 82 which is ledger A/C of the assessee with Pragati Shares & Stock Services showing debit of Rs. 2,30,805/- against 5000 shares of Alpha Graphics Ltd. (BSE)[ 02.07.2010 to 25.07.2010]. Our attention was then invited to PB page 84 & 85 of PB which are "Contractcum- Bill dt. 02.07.2010" in the name of the assessee showing purchase price of Rs. 2,30,805/- of Pragati Shares & Stock Services which evidences purchase of 5000 shares of Alpha Graphics Ltd. (BSE). 3.3 Next our attention was invited to PB pages 51,52 & 53 of PB wherein disclosure of IDS 2016 was made before PCIT, Indore. Specific attention was invited to page 51,52 & 53 of PB wherein there is mention of Rs. 26,54,000/- against LTCG on sale of shares of Alpha Graphics including incidental charges [ Nature of undisclosed income]. Save & except above no other submissions were made by the Ld.AR, although several grounds are raised in the Form No. 36. Per Contra, the Ld. DR appearing for & on behalf of the revenue submitted that he leaves th....