KALPNA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO- WARD-1(2)(1), KANPUR

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, dated 27.01.2026, for the AY 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,97,853/-without treating the same as Long term Capital Gains. 2. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 29,97,853/-without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by sustaining the addition

I.T.A. No. 296/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2011-12 2

of Rs. 29,97,853/-by denying exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Income tax Act 1961 and treating the same as a sham transaction. 4. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining addition of Rs. 29,97,853/-on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gains without due consideration that such Purchase and Sales of Shares are supported by Contract notes, The movement was shares were through DMAT Account of the appellant, the transactions were in purview of SEBI which is a Market Regulator, Securities Transactions Tax has been paid by the appellant. 5. Because the transactions apart from being verifiable from the stock exchange, stood verified from the statement of the broker and such contract notes have not been found false or fabricated or non existent. 6. Because the case laws referred to and relied by the Ld. CIT A while upholding the addition are distinguishable on facts and the inference drawn on the basis of such case laws cannot be sustained. 7. Because without considering the facts that the report of Investigation Wing could not have constituted material for the purpose of making assessment even when such report was not confronted to the appellant the Ld. CIT A has erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition based upon such report. 8. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity.”

(B) In this case, assessment order dated 19.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) whereby the assessee’s income was determined at Rs. 32,62,583/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs. 29,82,938/- and Rs. 14,915/- were made. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 27.01.2026. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A).

I.T.A. No. 296/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2011-12 3

(C) At the time of hearing, learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, he submitted that the issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh appellate order, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this.

(D) In view of the foregoing, after hearing both sides and after due consideration of materials on record, the issues in dispute regarding aforesaid additions of Rs. 29,82,938/- and Rs. 14,915/- are restored back to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass denovo appellate order, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(E) All the grounds of appeal in present appeal are treated as disposed off in accordance with the aforesaid directions. For statistical purposes, the appeal is partly allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 11/05/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: 11/05/2026 SK, Sr.PS

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T.,

I.T.A. No. 296/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2011-12 4