SHYAM KAPOOR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT 1, BAREILLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 106/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This was primarily due to the appeal being defective, filed beyond the prescribed time limit, and the assessee failing to remove the defects or provide a sufficient cause for the delay and non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex parte order of the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition made by the AO. The assessee claimed that notices were sent to an incorrect email address and that the addition was made without proper opportunity to be heard. The appeal before the ITAT was also found to be defective and filed beyond the limitation period.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the appeal before the ITAT was maintainable due to defects and delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 271(1)(c),Section 253(3),Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

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 08.08.2023, for the AY 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in passing ex parte order confirming addition made by the assessing officer in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That the email on which notices of hearing as well as order were sent did not belong to the appellant and was not operated by the appellant and hence the appellant could not make any compliance.

I.T.A. No. 106/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2015-16 2

3.

That on merits the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in denying exemption of long term capital gain (LTCG) of INR 23,12,597 (incorrectly mentioned as 26,97,268 in assessment order) on sale of equity shares of Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Limited claimed by the appellant under section 10(38) and making addition of such LTCG under section 68 of the Act alleging the same to be bogus in nature. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in passing ex parte order in undue haste and without discussing the merits of the case, which is against the principle of natural justice 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in making aforesaid addition alleging that the appellant had obtained accommodation entry in form of bogus LTCG through penny stock companies solely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind by the assessing officer. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer on the basis on preponderance of probability in supersession to the law of evidence. 7. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law for not appreciating that aforesaid addition was made merely on the basis of presumptions, conjectures and surmises and no documentary evidence was brought on record by the assessing officer before making such addition. 8. That the CIT(A) further erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant was legally entitled to claim exemption under section 10(38) of the Act qua aforesaid LTCG inasmuch as period of holding of shares was long term in nature and the same were sold by the appellant through recognized stock exchange on which Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was also paid. 9. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that all details and documentary evidences qua sale of shares were furnished before the assessing officer and no document was produced by the assessing officer to controvert such information and evidences. 10. That the AO erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”

(B) In this case assessment order dated 28.12.2017 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) whereby the assessee’s

I.T.A. No. 106/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2015-16 3

total income was determined at Rs. 39,64,068/- as against the returned income of Rs. 12,66,800/-. The aforesaid assessment order the addition of Rs. 26,97,268/- was made under section 68 of the Act. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide impugned appellate order dated 08.08.2023. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order darted 08.08.2023. The Counsel for the assessee who filed this appeal on 31.01.2026 was informed at the time of filing of appeal, that the assessee’s appeal suffered from the following defects:

(1) (EF) Date mentioned against col.3(c) in Form 36 appears to be not correct. Explain may be filed. (2) (EF) Dater of order in Column 3(b) not (correctly) filled in. (3) (EF) Uploaded Draft Assessment order is not legible.

(B.1) The assessee was advised to rectify the defects within 10 days.

(B.2) However, the defects have not been removed by the assessee despite substantial passage of time. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable, as defects have not been removed. Moreover, the appeal has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the Act. However the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. Moreover, there was no representation from the assessee’s side at the time of hearing on 04.05.2026. Therefore, this appeal is barred by limitation.

(B.3) In view of foregoing paragraphs (B), (B.1) and (B.2) of this order, this appeal is dismissed being defective and also being barred by limitation.

I.T.A. No. 106/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2015-16 4

(C) By way of abundant caution, it is hereby clarified that the appellant/assessee will be at liberty to approach the ITAT, as per Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (the Rules), if the assessee satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time prescribed time under section 253(3) of the Act and if the assessee removes the aforesaid defects mentioned in foregoing paragraphs of this order and further if the assessee satisfies ITAT that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance at the time of hearing on 12.05.2026.

(D) In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 14/05/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: 14/05/2026 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., 5. CIT(A) Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →