KAHNAYALAL ANIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide an effective opportunity to the assessee and pass an order on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed long-term capital gains deduction under Section 10(38) on the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer treated the sale as penny stock and assessed the entire sale consideration as income from other sources. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 5-day delay in filing.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the sale of shares constituted penny stock.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B (SMC
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in dated 04.06.2018 for assessment year 2014-15.
Shri. Kahnayalal Anil Kumar, the assessee, sold 75,000 shares of M/s. Esaar India Ltd., computed long term capital gains of Rs. 13,13,695/- and claimed it as a deduction u/s. 10(38) for assessment year 2014-15. While making the assessment for assessment year 2014- 15, the Assessing Officer after considering various materials collected by him and furnished by the assessee treated the sale of shares as a penny stock and assessed the entire sale consideration as an “income from other sources”. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed it as barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee misplaced the assessment order as it got mixed up with various papers. By the time he could trace and file the appeal there was a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. So, he pleaded that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and sought condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), unfortunately, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The assessee pleaded that the delay be condoned in the interests of justice and due justice is rendered to the assessee.
We heard the rival submissions and condone the delay. The issue is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for affording effective opportunity to the assessee and pass the order on merits in accordance with law.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on Thursday, the 20th day of December, 2018 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 10(38)
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026