Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's original ITR for AY 2012-13 was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, information regarding non-genuine penny stock transactions of Rs.30,89,875/- led to reassessment proceedings under Section 148, with the Assessing Officer adding Rs.34,39,055/- for bogus long-term capital gain. The learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte after the assessee failed to file submissions despite multiple opportunities.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the learned CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back to the learned CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing. It directed the learned CIT(Appeals) to grant another opportunity to the assessee, cautioning the assessee to cooperate, failing which the CIT(A) may pass an order based on available records.
Key Issues
Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present her case, concerning the addition for bogus long-term capital gain from share transactions.
Sections Cited
143(1), 133(6), 148, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Munmun Nayak,………………………………………Appellant C/o. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Sagar Mansion”, 2, Garstin Place, 2nd Floor, Suite Nos. 202 & 203, Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal [PAN:AICPN6605L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-2(2), Burdwan, Kachari Road, Court Compound, P.O. & P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman-713101, W.B, Appearances by: Shri Somnath Ghosh, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: April 30, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R
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 29th February, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Munmun Nayak 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed her return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 26.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,55,200/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) on 25.10.2013 with income of Rs.3,55,200/-. Subsequently information received for the relevant assessment year that the assessee was indulged in non-genuine transactions of Rs.30,89,875/- in penny shares under the script of Twenty First Century India Limited from the platform of Kolkata Stock Exchange through Anil Kumar Khemka, a renowned entry operator. From the information, it was found that the assessee had transacted total 9500 number of shares of Twenty First Century India Limited at a total consideration of Rs.30,89,875/-. In this regard, notice under section 133(6) was issued to the assessee after obtaining approval from Pr. CIT, Burdwan for requiring the details of share purchase and sale during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. But no reply was received from the assessee within stipulated time. Accordingly notice under section 148 dated 28.03.2019 through ITBA was issued and duly served on the assessee requesting her to file return of income against notice under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. In response to the notice, the assessee filed her return of income under section 148 on 04.06.2019 showing total income of Rs.3,55,200/-. Subsequently notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and duly served on the assesese through e-mail as well as speed post requesting the assessee to submit certain documents and clarification in relation to the ITR filed for the FY 2011-12, Accordingly notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Banks. During scrutiny proceedings, it was observed (A.Y. 2012-2013) Munmun Nayak that the assessee failed to produce any documents from where she claimed long-term capital gain in share sale of Twenty First Century India Pvt. Limited. The assessee also failed to produce copy of agreement of merger/amalgamation order by Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata between Astha Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. 9which the assessee owned) and Twenty First Century India Pvt. Limited. The ld. Assessing Officer opined that the sale value of Rs.30,83,855/- of Twenty First Century shares is a fabricated transaction by the assessee and the same was treated as bogus and assessed income of the assessee at Rs.34,39,055/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate her claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 29th February, 2024.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, (A.Y. 2012-2013) Munmun Nayak the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.34,39,055/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 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 her claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised
by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/05/2025.