Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal concerns a reassessment order for AY 2018-19, where the AO made a significant addition under section 69A for unexplained money from short-term capital gains on alleged penny stock transactions and disallowed short-term capital loss from F&O. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, citing non-compliance and invoking the principle 'Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt'.
Held
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without a speaking order on merits, which caused prejudice and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds of appeal, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without a speaking order on merits, violating natural justice. 2. Validity of addition under section 69A for alleged unexplained money from penny stock transactions and disallowance of short-term capital loss. 3. Whether adequate opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee.
Sections Cited
139(4), 148A(b), 147, 144B, 69A, 271AAC(1), 270A, 234A, 234B, 234C, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)