BHUNESH JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-I, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 970/JPR/2025 Bhunesh Jhalani IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 970/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2014-15) Bhunesh Jhalani Vs. ITO, 1079, Jhalaniyon Ka Rasta Ward-2(2), Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Kota �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AANPJ0340D Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 03.12.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 970/JPR/2025 Bhunesh Jhalani 3. The assessee in his appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the ld.CIT Appeal grossly erred in treating the transaction of sale of 6000 shares of M/s Turbotech as a sham transaction, and treated the LTCG of Rs. 2872415/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961, as bogus, without giving the proper hearing opportunity because applicant did not receive any notice of hearing because applicant came to know the facts of the order when department person went applicant's house personally to serve the penalty notice and as per the order of Ld. CIT appeal Notice has been served on email id i.e. skguptacajrr@live.com which is not in operation hence not received the notice and order made by the Ld. CIT Appeal without giving proper opportunity thus the addition sustained deserves to be deleted. 4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. An adjournment application has been moved on behalf of Sh. SK Gupta, Chartered Accountant, wherein, it has been requested that the adjournment may be allowed for one month as the submissions could not be prepared. We note that the adjournment is not prerogative of the AR of the assessee. There must be some substantial cause or reason for seeking adjournment. Therefore, the adjournment application is hereby rejected. We proceed to adjudicate this appeal after hearing the Ld. DR and going through the record. 5. A perusal of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the same is an ex parte order against the assessee. It is also noted from Para 6 of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued notices of hearing on the Email ID skguptacajpr@live.com; whereas, in appeal Form No.35, the email id at which the notices should be communicated has been mentioned as “skguptacajpr@yahoo.com.in”. 6. In the grounds of appeal as well as in the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has specifically pleaded that the assessee has not

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 970/JPR/2025 Bhunesh Jhalani received any notice of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A) on the email mentioned in the appeal Form No.35. Further, the Email ID at which the notices were issued was not operational at that time. 7. Considering the aforesaid factual position, it is apparent from record that the notices of hearing were not sent at the email id provided in appeal Form No.35 and the assessee was not aware of the dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) and even did not receive the copy of the impugned order resulting into delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in our view, the interests of justice will be best served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in accordance with law. The assessee will remain vigilant and will take care of the notice of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) will issue the notice of hearing on the Email ID as mentioned in appeal Form No.35. 8. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 26/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 26.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 970/JPR/2025 Bhunesh Jhalani