NITIN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee filed his return for AY 2009-10, which was later reopened by the AO. The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,14,222/- on account of alleged misuse of client code modification in F&O. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in conformity with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires the order to be in writing, stating points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7991/MUM/2025 (AY:2009-10) Nitin Gupta vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4) 47/47, Balkrishna Niwas, Piramal Chamber, 2nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai - 4000011 Mumbai – 400011. PAN/GIR No: AAFPG6744C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Khushali Desai Respondent by Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under
section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Addl./Jt.
Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 19.09.2025
for the assessment year (AY) 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice dated 30.03.2016 u/s 148, which is merely due to change in opinion and therefore reopening is bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice dated 30.03.2016 u/s 148, which is barred by limitation of law in view of the first proviso to the Sec 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITA No.7991/MUM/2025 (AY 2009-10) Nitin Gupta
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in treating the F & O loss incurred by the appellant as non-genuine and bogus transaction as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise.
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making the disallowance of Rs. 2,14,222/- on account of F & O loss incurred by the appellant as non-genuine and bogus transaction as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise.
The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income
for the AY 2009-10 on 21.04.2016 declaring total income at Rs.3,60,270/-. The
case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on
30.03.2016. After hearing the assessee, order u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act was
passed on 28.12.2016 by making addition of Rs.2,14,222/- on account of claim of
loss by misusing client code modification (CCM) in F&O to segment on NSE.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) issued 9 notices as per the table given in page 4 of the appellate order.
However, there were no response from the appellant. Therefore, the CIT(A) was
of the view that the appellant is not interested in providing any details and is also
not interested in perusing the appeal. He referred to the decisions in the case of
B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Chemipol vs. Union of India
in Excise Appeal no. 62 of 2009 (Bombay HC) and dismissed the appeal of the
assessee.
ITA No.7991/MUM/2025 (AY 2009-10) Nitin Gupta
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the
Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the appellant submitted that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-
parte order in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the
order passed by the CIT(A) is not as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act.
He submitted that the appellant is ready with all the materials and details in
support of the grounds raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.AR
requested that in the interest of justice the assessee may be granted another
opportunity to argue his case on merit before the CIT(A).
On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR of the revenue supported the order of
CIT(A). He submitted that the CIT(A) granted 9 opportunities to the assessee to
file his reply along with necessary details and evidence in support of the grounds
raised in the appeal. However, there was neither any request for adjournment
not any submission by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed
the appeal of the appellant.
We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. There is
no dispute that the CIT(A) issued 9 notices u/s 250 of the Act to the assessee but
there was no compliance to the said notices. The appellant has only stated that
the principles of natural justice were not adhered to by the CIT(A) without
explaining the reasons for the non-compliance to the notices issued by the CIT(A).
However, we find that the order of the CIT(A) is also not as per the mandate of
ITA No.7991/MUM/2025 (AY 2009-10) Nitin Gupta
sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which states that the order of the CIT(A)
shall be in writing stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and
the reason for the decision. It is clear from a reading of the impugned order that
it is not as per the requirements of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, without
discussing further on the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the order
of CIT(A) needs to be set aside to be framed afresh in accordance with law.
Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to
his file subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to
the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days from receipt of this
order. Subject to the payment as above, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and he is
directed to decide the appeal on merit after granting adequate and reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant
and submit explanation and details as may be required by the CIT(A). Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Since we have set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the matter back
to his file on fresh adjudication, the other grounds become academic in nature
and do not need adjudication.
ITA No.7991/MUM/2025 (AY 2009-10) Nitin Gupta
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order is pronounced on 27.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 27.02.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File
By Order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI
