DELTA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues raised by the appellant on merits in an effective and meaningful manner.

That the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex parte merely on account of non-representation/non-compliance on certain dates, without appreciating that the appellant's failure to appear before the appellate authority was neither deliberate nor with an intention to abandon the appeal, and that the appellant continues to be genuinely interested in pursuing the appeal.

That the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in observing that the appellant was afforded sufficient opportunities and in concluding that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal, without considering the circumstances leading to the non-representation and without providing a further effective opportunity to the appellant to place its submissions and supporting documentary evidence on record. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

That the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition/disallowance of Rs.1,77,92,800/- in respect of loss claimed by the appellant on transactions in derivatives at the Bombay Stock Exchange, by treating the same as bogus/unexplained under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly examining the nature of the transactions, the supporting documentary evidence and the explanation of the appellant.

That the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in not properly adjudicating the appellant's contention regarding the set-off of the income determined under section 115BBE against the brought-forward losses, despite the specific ground raised by the appellant in this regard and the CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 relied upon by the appellant.

That the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly examining the correctness of the computation of such interest and the consequential effect of the additions/disallowances in the assessed income.

That in the interest of natural justice, the impugned appellate order may kindly be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the appellant a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and of filing supporting documents/evidence.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring the total income at ₹NIL. The case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act based on information regarding tax evasion through coordinated and premeditated trading in illiquid stock options on the Bombay Stock Exchange to claim fictitious losses. The Assessing Officer [Ld. 'AO'] conducted an investigation and observed that the assessee had booked a bogus loss of ₹1,78,38,206/-. Due to non- compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO passed an ex parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Ld. AO made an addition of ₹1,77,92,800/- treating the derivative loss as bogus u/s 68 of the Act and made a further addition of ₹3,55,856/- as unexplained commission expenditure u/s 69C of the Act, thereby assessing the total income at ₹1,81,48,656/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee remained non-responsive despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) also decided the appeal ex parte on merits based on the materials available on record, and upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO regarding the bogus loss and the commission paid. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR stated that both the orders of the lower authorities are ex parte and requested that the matter may be ITA No(s). 3055/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2015-16 Delta International Ltd. remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) so that adequate opportunity of being heard can be availed.

The Ld. DR had no serious objection if the matter were remanded to the Ld. CIT(A).

Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. CIT(A) may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th October, 2026. [Yogesh Kumar US] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28.10.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI Date: BHOI 2026.10.29 17:20:30 +05'30'