SMT SUSHMA GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. 25(3) (4), MUMBAI

I observe that the assessee remained ex parte before the learned CIT(A). However, the fact remains that the addition in the year under consideration has been made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sale of shares of SVC Resources Limited, which, according to the Revenue, 1 constituted a penny stock. The assessee had sold shares of the said scrip and claimed long-term capital gains (LTCG) in two consecutive assessment years, i.e., AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. The said claims were denied by the Assessing Officer while passing the respective assessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and additions were made under section 68 of the Act.

Both the assessment orders were challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). It is the contention of the assessee that the hearings in both the appeals were conducted around the same period. Since AY 2012-13 represented the first year in which the shares of the said scrip were sold, the assessee furnished the relevant factual details, written submissions and legal paper book in that appeal.

However, when the appeal for the year under consideration, i.e., AY 2013-14, came up for hearing, the assessee also filed an application/letter dated 27.01.2024 requesting the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate both appeals simultaneously so as to avoid conflicting decisions on identical issues. The said request, however, did not yield any result, and the appeal for AY 2013- 14 was thereafter adjudicated against the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is presently before me.

It is pertinent to note that the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13, involving the same scrip and substantially identical issues, is still pending before the learned CIT(A) and has not yet been adjudicated.

It has further been brought to my notice that the son of the assessee had also sold shares of the same scrip, i.e., SVC Resources Limited. In his case also, the assessment was reopened and additions were made in respect of the transactions in the said scrip. The additions were, however, deleted by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 27.02.2026.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the assessee was not represented before the learned CIT(A) when the appeal for AY 2013-14 was adjudicated, as well as the fact that the appeal for AY 2012-13 involving the same scrip and substantially identical issues is still pending, I am of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, I set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

I further direct the learned CIT(A) to take into consideration the fact that the appeal for AY 2012-13 involving the same scrip and substantially identical issues is still pending before him. In order to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions on identical issues, the learned CIT(A) may, subject to the provisions of law and the procedural requirements applicable thereto, endeavour to adjudicate the appeals for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 simultaneously.

The learned CIT(A) shall also take into consideration, as a relevant factual and legal circumstance, the order dated 27.02.2026 passed in the case of the assessee's son in relation to the same scrip. Needless to say, the learned CIT(A) shall examine the said order and the facts of that case independently and shall thereafter arrive at his own conclusion in the present case in accordance with law.

Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) shall not be construed as expressing any opinion, directly or indirectly, on the merits of the dispute. All issues are left open for consideration by the learned CIT(A), who shall adjudicate the same independently and in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the learned CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and shall not seek adjournment except for reasonable and bona fide reasons.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.