Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return admitting Nil income, but disclosed sale consideration of shares/MF units on which STT was paid. The AO, finding the assessee non-responsive to notices, made additions under sections 69 and for STCG, leading to a substantial total income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for hearing and the assessee had filed submissions. However, the assessee's representative argued that documents and submissions were ignored. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly decided the appeal on merits without considering all documentary evidence and submissions, and whether the case should be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration of additional evidence.
Sections Cited
Sec. 144, Sec. 144B, Sec. 69, Sec. 111A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
This appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2022-23, vide order dated 17.09.2025.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, earning income from trading activities through ICICI Direct, Zerodha, Kotak Securities and has filed his return of income for AY 2022-23, admitting a total income of Rs.NIL. On perusal of the ITR, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has disclosed “sale consideration of equity share or unit of equity oriented MF or unit of a business trust on which STT is paid u/s.111A & “Cost of acquisition without indexation” to the tune of :-2-: ITA. No:3016/Chny/2025 Rs.35,12,32,603/- and Rs.35,11,90,432/- respectively and the difference amount of Rs.42,171/- was offered as STCG. The case was selected for scrutiny, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to furnish proper documentary evidence and the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. Since the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 24.03.2024 by making an addition of Rs.35,11,90,432/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and Rs.3,22,14,480/- as Short Term Capital Gain and arrived a total income of Rs.38,34,04,910/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC on 08.07.2024.
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided five opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 7 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. In response, the assessee filed his submissions on 17.09.2025. On perusal of the submissions filed by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) considered the appeal on merits and partly allowed by passing an order dated 17.09.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The ld.AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC ignored the documents available on record and detailed written submissions filed by the assessee and the issue on short term capital gains was decided based on the statement of facts alone. Further, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted additional documentary evidence before the Tribunal. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.
Per contra, The Ld.DR, objected for admission of additional evidence raised by the assessee. Further, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
:-3-: ITA. No:3016/Chny/2025 7. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and additional evidence filed by the assessee and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the information available with the ITR and the same has been partly allowed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to failure to furnish documentary evidence in support of the claims before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A). Before us the ld.AR submitted that the additional ground and evidence were filed before the ld.CIT(A) have not been considered and hence prayed for remitting the issue back to the AO for consideration.
In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after considering the additional grounds and evidence by providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01st January, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार �ग�र) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member