MANU TIBREWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE- 1(2), KANPUR

Because the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.11,33,300 u/s 69 of the Act, being sale proceeds in respect of sale of equity shares in which transaction the assessee had earned long term capital gain of Rs.9,07,783/- claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38). 2. Because the view taken by the authorities below in the matter of long term capital gain, claimed exempt u/s 10(38) by the assessee, is wholly inconsistent not only with facts of the case and material placed on record, but also the provision of law. 3. Because on the basis of facts brought on record, the authorities below have failed to consider and appreciate inter alia that the genuineness of the transaction, in respect of securities, stands proved and onus cast on the assessee stands discharged.

That the AO has failed to bring on record any cogent material with evidence contrary to facts brought on record by the assessee in respect of transaction relating to purchase and sale of equity shares resulting in long term capital gain of Rs.9,07,783/-. 5. That the impugned addition of Rs.11,33,300/- is based on surmises, suspicion and probabilities and is liable to be deleted. 6. That the addition of Rs.11,33,300/- u/s 69 of the Act is insupportable in law and on facts and is contrary to principles of natural justice and equity.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issuance of notice through RPAD, which has not returned unserved. However, I find that this appeal can be disposed of in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. and after considering the material placed on record. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. I take note that the ld. CIT(A) had issued two notices, dated 31/3/2018 and 12/4/2018 for compliance on 12/4/2018 and 25/4/2018 respectively. On 25/4/2018, assessee sought adjournment. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned and finally the appeal was fixed for hearing on 18/6/2018. But, on this date, neither anybody has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any written submission or paper book has been filed on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. 4. Heard. I find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent