ARATI PURKAIT,KOLKATA vs. ACIT- CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1066/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Arati Purkait | ACIT, Circle-15(2), Kolkata. Flat No. IC, Mainak Residency, 207, N. S. Road, Kolkata 700040. | Vs (PAN: AIYPP9680P) (Appellant) | (Respondent)

Present for:

Appellant by : N o n e

Respondent by : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025

O R D E R

Per Bench :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054185803(1) dated 06.07.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for AY 2013-14.

- 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. - 3. A perusal of the appeal record shows that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 32 days. A separate condonation of delay petition has been placed in file. However, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay

and admit the appeal for hearing after considering the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR and the available material placed on file.

- 4. A perusal of the appeal record shows that the appeal has been filed by the assessee in October, 2023. The appeal has been posted on multiple occasions and on all occasions the assessee has sought time and on a few occasions the Bench did not function. Today, when the appeal of the assessee is called for hearing, we note that on 30.01.2025 notice under RPAD has also been sent to the assessee for posting the case for hearing today and inspite of that none appeared today. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is being heard ex parte qua the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the issues involved in the appeal were in regard to bogus claim u/s. 10(38) of the Act. It was the submission that the penny stocks of CCL have been dealt with by the assessee and on the basis of the Investigation Report received by the Assessing Officer and the order of the SEBI in the case of CCL International, the exempt income claimed by the assessee u/s. 10(38) of the Act was denied. It was the submission that even before the Tribunal, the assessee has not represented the matter. It was the prayer of the Ld. Sr. DR that the orders of the lower authorities may be upheld. - 5. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR. We have also taken into account the fact that the assessee chose not to represent her case before the Ld. CIT(A) and has also failed to represent her case before the Tribunal. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the Assessing Officer in his assessment order has primarily based his findings on the report of the Investigation Wing of the Department and SEBI's order. A further perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer shows that the details of the findings of the Investigation Wing and the statement on which the Investigation Wing had placed its reliance were not put across to the assessee for the assessee's rebuttal. Thus, there is a clear violation