Bombay High Court
Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax C 3 vs Arun L Gadhiya on 1 October, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
15-35-ITXA-93-24+.DOCX
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2024
SAYALI
DEEPAK
UPASANI Pr Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
Cental 3
DEEPAK
UPASANI
Date: 2025.10.03
Versus
11:21:17 +0530
Nayana B Gadhiya ...Respondent
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1117 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1126 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1127 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1128 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1143 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1150 OF 2024
AND
Page 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2025 01:18:09 :::
15-35-ITXA-93-24+.DOCX
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1165 OF 2024
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 07 OF 2025
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 08 OF 2025
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2025
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2025
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2025
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2025
______________________________________________________
Mr Suresh Kumar, for Appellants.
Mr Dharan Gandhi, through VC with Ms. Aanchal Vyas, for
Respondents.
______________________________________________________
CORAM: M.S. Sonak &
Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED: 01 OCTOBER 2025
PC:-
1. The learned Counsel for the parties point out that ITXA
No.8 of 2024 raising identical issues has already been
admitted by this Court on 17 September 2025.
2. Accordingly, we admit all these Appeals on the following
substantial questions of law:-
"A. Whether the interpretation of facts of the case by
ITAT suffer from perversity in as much as it allows the
claim of the assessee in having earned exempt
income from trading in shares of a company, when its
15-35-ITXA-93-24+.DOCX
director himself has admitted that the share price of
the company was rigged to provide accommodation
entry?
B. Whether the judgment of the ITAT suffer from
perversity in as much as it ignored the fact that
earning such huge amounts of capital gains by seven
different family members was beyond the pale of
'human probabilities' and could have only been a
result of a colourable device to evade taxes?
C. Whether the judgment of the ITAT suffers from
perversity in as much as it places emphasis on the
fact that the company in which the assessee had
invested fulfilled all the regulatory requirements
before issuing shares on preferential allotment but
does not take into consideration that the trading in
shares of the company was barred by SEBI
subsequently for price rigging?
D. Whether the interpretation of facts of the case by
ITAT suffer from perversity in as much as it places
undue emphasis on the fact that the trading was
through a screen based system, when the same has
been held to be liable to manipulation and
malpractices by the Hon'ble Apex Court?
E. Whether the judgment of the ITAT suffers from
perversity in as much as it holds that not providing
15-35-ITXA-93-24+.DOCX
opportunity for cross- examination to the assessee
results in violation of natural justice when the same
was not possible considering the efflux of time?
F. Whether the order of the ITAT interfering with
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the due
authorities without recording sufficient reasons and
following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam
Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs1 warrants interference?"
3. Tag all these Appeals with ITXA No. 08 of 2024.
4. Mr. Dharan Gandhi appears and waives service on
behalf of the Respondents in all these Appeals.
5. Mr. Suresh Kumar states that he will furnish copies of
the Appeal Memo in ITXA No. 53 of 2025 and ITXA No. 121 of
2025 to Mr. Gandhi within a week from today. In the rest of
the Appeals, Mr. Gandhi has already received the copies of the
memo of Appeals and has also filed his Vakalatnama on behalf
of the Respondents.
(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
(2001) 3 SCC 179
