Krunal Ashokkumar Jethva Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Penny-Stock Allegation Fails—Speculative Intraday Trades Accepted; Additions of ₹1.25 Cr & ₹1.53 Lakh Deleted
The Assessee, an individual engaged in share trading, appealed against NFAC’s order dated 19.05.2025 sustaining additions of ₹1,25,79,787 and ₹1,53,633 u/s 68 on the allegation that he was a beneficiary of bogus LTCG accommodation entries in the scrip Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Inanna Fashion & Trends Ltd.) through operators linked to Jignesh Shah & Sanjay Shah. The case originated from a search on the operators (11.09.2018) and an Insight Portal flag showing the Assessee as a beneficiary.
Legal issue: Non-issuance of 143(2) notice
The Assessee argued that once he filed a return in response to notice u/s 148 (on 17.03.2022), non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) rendered reassessment invalid.
Tribunal held:
- Return was filed extremely late, at the fag end of limitation, after prolonged non-compliance.
- Assessment was rightly completed u/s 144, and the belated return could not override AO’s jurisdiction.
- Therefore, absence of notice u/s 143(2) did not invalidate reassessment in these peculiar facts.
The legal ground was rejected.
On merits – Additions held unsustainable
Tribunal perused broker contract notes, ledger accounts, and bank statements placed in the paper book.
