SURYA KIRAN EXIM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 24(4), NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3068/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 M/s. Surya Kiran Exim P. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd. Ward 24(4), UGF-62A, WTC, New Delhi Behind Lalit Hotel, Babur Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAKCS7953B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 06.08.2018 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘The CIT(A)’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 19.12.2016 of Ld. Assessing

ITA No. 3068/Del/2019 Surya Kiran Exim Officer/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘The AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.10.2014 disclosing income of Rs. Nil. The return was signed and verified by Sh. Madhusudan Singh, Director of the assessee company. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the act dated 18.09.2015 was issued. Detailed questionnaire u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 16.05.2016 was issued. Shri Pankaj Manuja, CA and Sh. Sukhjit Singh Ahluwalia, CA of the company attended and furnished replies. The reason for scrutiny was “Suspicious transactions relating to short term and long term capital gain”. On perusal of AIR information, it was observed that under the head “PENNY STOCK” the assessee company indulged in Buy and Sell of shares by the script name “SRK INDUS”. The assessee company vide letter dated 14.09.2016 submitted the details of SRK Industries ltd. 2.1 On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 19.12.2016 made addition of Rs. 1,46,18,325/- by disallowing loss on SRK Indus Ltd. 2.2 Against order dated 19.12.2016 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2018. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:

ITA No. 3068/Del/2019 Surya Kiran Exim

“1. The Assessment Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 on 06.08.2018 is wrong on facts and bad in law and therefore it is illegal and non-est. 2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the claim of short- term capital loss of Rs. 1,46,18,325/- is not admissible. 3(i) That the Commissioner(Appeals) erred in holding that all other grounds are general or consequential in nature. (ii) That the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not giving a finding on ground no. 4 before him that profit or loss earned and incurred by the appellant was taxable under the head ‘Capital Gains’ and not under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession” (iii) That the said ground ought to have been decided by way of a speaking order as such a finding has major impact on the tax liability of the appellant. (iv) That The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not disposing of Ground No. 5. (v) That the said ground ought to have been decided as such a finding has a bearing on deciding ground no. 4 before him. 4. All these grounds are without prejudice to one another. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, modify, or substitute any ground ‘as permitted by law’ during the course of hearing the appeal.” 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A), while deciding grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5, failed to appreciate that application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A was filed. Ld. CIT(A) without deciding the said application adjudicated ground Nos. 4 and 5. Specific grounds, being ground No. 3 (ii, iv and v), were also taken. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned order. 6. From examination of the record in light of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 06.08.2018 dismissed the

ITA No. 3068/Del/2019 Surya Kiran Exim appeal upholding the addition of short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,46,18,325/- being not admissible made by ld. AO. The appellant/assessee had pleaded specific ground Nos. 4 & 5 and had submitted application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence which was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). 7. In view of above material facts and in interest of substantial justice, the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 of ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI