VIPIN SHERSINGH ARGARWAL,CHEMBUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8(2)(1), M.K. ROAD MUMBAI

The order dated 28/10/2025 bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1082057222[1] passed by the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable C.I.T.(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,07,76,840/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of Long-Term Capital Gain claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Appellant.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable C.I.T.(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,23,305/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained expenditure.

The appellant craves to alter, add, DELETE, substitute, OR modify and other grounds of appeal.

Submissions of both the appeals have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the Assessee, fairly submits that there is delay of 24 days in filing both the appeals. The Assessee has already filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining such delay. The Ld.AR of the Assessee submits that the Assessee could not realize about passing of order by CIT(A). When the Assessee was checking email, realized that appeal of CIT(A) has been dismissed. The Assessee came to know about dismissal of appeal in January 2026. The appeal was filed on 24th January 2026. There is no intentional delay in filing an appeal. The Assessee has put case of merit on and is likely to succeed if he is allowed to contest the appeal on merit. The Ld.AR of the Assessee admits that the Assessee could not file complete details and evidences in support of the claim of long-term capital gains. The long-term capital gains was treated as a penny stock transaction. The Assessee entered into genuine transaction and has no role in the alleged penny script transactions. He may be given one more opportunity to contest the case before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has confirmed the order of CIT(A). So far as case for AY 2014-15 is concerned, the Assessee could file part reply before CIT(A). Thus the case for AY 2014-15, similar, be restored to CIT(A), with the liberty to the Assessee to give one more opportunity to contest the case on merit. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue not seriously opposed the delay of condonation. However, on merit, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that assessing officer in the assessment order has demonstrated the modus operandi of being of penny stocks transaction. The Assessee is one of the beneficiary of such transaction. The Assessee dealt with listed shares of Kailash Auto finance Ltd, which are identified as penny script company by investigation wing. The AO has brought sufficient material on record to prove that the Assessee is beneficiary of penny script transaction, long-term capital gains claimed by the Assessee is bogus. 5. In rejoinder submission, the Ld. AR of the Assessee submits that at this stage he is only seeking one more opportunity and liberty to file a complete submission before CIT(A), so that he may consider and pass the order after considering the evidence available with Assessee. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through orders of lower authorities carefully. First, we are dealing with the delay condone, in filing appeal before this tribunal. We find that there is 24 days delay in filing appeal before the tribunal. The Ld.AR has explained the cause of such delay being no information about passing of an order was received by him. Considering the submission of learned AR of the Assessee, which we have recorded above, we find that delay is neither intentional nor deliberate; rather, delay of only 24 days. Hence, keeping in view the principles of natural justice and the fact that when cause of substantial justice and technical considerations are kept each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Hence the delay in filing appeal is condoned. So far as the merit of case is concerned, the Ld.AR of the Assessee before us made limited prayer for allowing one more opportunity, as he could not file complete details before the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of order of CIT(A), we find that on page 52 of that the learned CIT(A) recorded that Assessee filed submission before him and recorded same, “written submission the relevant part of submission is reproduced as under.” We find that in the written submission, the CIT(A) recorded that similar grounds of appeal was raised in AY 2014-15 and the Assessee made prayer to relying upon such submission. However, contents of such submissions are not recorded. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer in making addition under section 69 of the Act in treating long-term capital gains as sham transaction, considering the fact learned AR of the Assessee had made limited prayer for allowing him file written submission and the documentary evidence. Therefore, in our view, no prejudice is caused to the revenue if one more opportunity is allowed to assessee and to contest the case on merit by filing complete evidence. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are restored back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal afresh. 7. Considering the fact that in AY 2014-15 the Assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal, rather the grounds of appeal and certain facts are common. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is also restored back to the file of CIT(A). 8. In the result, both appeals ITA 684 & 685/MUM/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.10.2026. sd s Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR LODHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER