CRESCORE STOCK BROKING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 6(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1451/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 February 2020AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee also contested the classification of derivative and investment losses as speculative.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adhering to principles of natural justice. Whether derivative and investment losses were correctly treated as speculative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate

This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-2], New Delhi dated 24.12.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16 on the following grounds:-

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the exparte order and that without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice.

2. That in any case and in view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in passing the exparte order, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by confirming the action of AO by treating the loss suffered from Derivative Business of Rs. 6,76,532/-, as Speculation Loss by wrongly interpreting Explanation to Section 73(4) of the Act, 1961 even when the appellant was a sub-broker registered with SEBI.

4.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in treating the investment loss of Rs. 5,93,117/- suffered in purchase and sale of shares as ‘speculative loss’ by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 29.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court. 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 19.02.2020. Sd/-

More judgments on Section 73

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 73 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →