What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that setting off derivative losses against salary income is not permissible under Section 71(2A) of the Act. However, due to the ex-parte nature of the proceedings, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of a loss of Rs. 6,71,122/- incurred in derivative transactions. The assessee did not cooperate with the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether losses from derivative transactions can be set off against salary income, and the procedural fairness of ex-parte orders.

Vivek Kedia, Mumbai vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Hearing: 11/07/2023Pronounced: 24/07/2023

O R D E R

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 03/02/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2012-13.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment been filed. Perusal of the assessment order and the order of the ld. CIT(A) reveals that both have been framed ex-parte and the assessee has not co-operated in the proceedings below and except filing the appeal has not made any efforts to pursue the same. We, therefore, deem it proper to adjudicate the appeal and decide it on merits ex-parte, qua the assessee, after hearing the ld. D/R.

The sole ground raised

by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs.6,71,122/-. The ld. Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vivek Kedia 2 D/R stated that the assessee has not find any details before the lower authorities but as per the grounds filed before ld. CIT(A), it is stated that loss incurred in derivative transactions has been funded through salary income however, there is no detail about the nature of income earned during the year and whether the assessee has claimed set off of loss against the said head of income. Further, he submitted that since the assessee has not filed any details, it means that the assessee has nothing to state about the said disallowance and thus the same should be confirmed.

4. We have heard the ld. D/R and perused the material placed before us. We notice that the assessee has declared income of Rs.22,31,630/-in the return filed on 30/09/2015. After the case being selected for scrutiny on account of large value sale of futures, derivative and securities transactions, various notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not complied even though they were sent through speed post and email. The assessee has declared Nil income under the head business and profession and loss of Rs.6,71,122/- has been set off against the column for “Losses from current year set off against the gross total income”. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that under which head, the assessee has declared the income from other than business of profession. However, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of the said claim and assessed the income. Further we notice that in the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the assessee is a salaried employee. Now Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vivek Kedia 3

VIVEK KEDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments