Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 19.06.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.
There is a delay of 48 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. Assessee submitted that delay in filing this appeal is due to the family issues (assessee’s account was being handled by estranged husband, now divorced). Since the assessee lack the understanding with respect to the income tax appeal and procedure, led to the delay in filing this appeal. I find there is reasonable cause in late filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, I condone the delay of 48 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the case on merits.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Assessee is an individual, employed with Wipro Ltd. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, return of income was filed on 01.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,81,490/-. Pursuant to the AIR information, assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee was directed to explain the nature of share transaction undertaken by her and capital gains arising therefrom. However, the assessee had failed to furnish the details of derivatives (future) transaction. Hence, the entire turnover of derivatives (future) transaction of Rs.36,56,400/- (as per AIR information) was brought to tax.
Aggrieved by the Order of Assessment, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order since there was no response to the show cause notice issued from the Office of the CIT(A).
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal enclosing therein the details of derivative (future) transactions. The learned AR submitted that the assessee’s account (derivatives trading) was being handled by her ex-husband and he did not respond to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). Further, it was submitted that assessee had to depend on the consultant appointed by her ex- husband who did not respond to the notices due to misunderstanding and miscommunication. Therefore, it was prayed that the matter may be restored to the AO to examine the issue afresh.
The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee had not properly responded to the notices issued from the Office of the AO as well as CIT(A). It is a case of the assessee that her ex-husband was handling her account in the derivative trading. It was submitted that the consultant appointed by her ex-husband did not respond to the notices issued from the Office of the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that assessee should be provided one more opportunity of being heard. The additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal shall be duly furnished before the AO. The AO shall consider the evidence produced and shall take a decision after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.