VIKRAM KASERA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 61,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 268/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 June 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated failure to appear or submit documents before the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT. However, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard, with a caution to promptly cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, filed returns for AY 2017-18 which were marked invalid. A search operation under Section 132 revealed that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 85,87,005/- through Kushal Group. The Assessing Officer completed assessment ex-parte under Section 144, treating the LTCG as unexplained under Section 68, leading to a total income of Rs. 98,35,095/-, which was upheld ex-parte by the CIT(Appeals) due to the assessee's non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as unexplained credit under Section 68 was justified, and whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present their case by the lower appellate authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 132,Section 147,Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11th December, 2024. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is an individual, who derives income from salary from Shristi Hotel Pvt. Limited and (A.Y. 2017-2018) Vikram Kasera also earned from transactions in derivatives entered through recognized Stock Exchange shown under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business and Profession”. The assessee filed his return of income electronically for the assessment year 2017-18 on 26.03.2018 and revised it on 03.06.2018. Both returns were marked as invalid as there is no valid ITR for the AY 2017-18. The case was selected to verify bogus long-term capital gain. Notice under section 148 for AY 2017-18 was issued on 12.04.2021 on the basis of information received from investigation Wing, DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(1), Ahmedabad. Incriminating data in the form of digital data, loose papers, diaries etc. were found and seized during action under section 132 of the Act. During the course of search action, data back-up of various devices i.e. computer, pen- drive, server, mobile phones etc. were seized/impounded. It was found that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of bogus LTCG and received bogus LTCG through Kushal Group to the tune of Rs.85,87,005/-. After initiating assessment proceedings under section 147, the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities to prove/explain the genuineness of transactions relating to LTCG. The assessee did not respond to the notice issued under section 148. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act assessing the amount of Rs.85,87,005/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.98,35,095/- including the income as per return of income filed amounting to Rs.12,48,090/-.

1.

(A.Y. 2017-2018) Vikram Kasera 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim, but the appellant did not file the written submissions and did not represent the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 11th December, 2024. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the asseessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the appeal available on record.

6.

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to our notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. CIT(Appeals) during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the revenue authorities.

7.

We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →