Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the appellate order disposing of appeals ex parte. For AY 2009-10, the assessee did not file a return, and the AO made additions based on information about share trading, future, and option transactions. For AY 2010-11, the assessee also did not file a return, and additions were made based on share trading and future/option transactions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent their case before the AO or CIT-A, despite opportunities. However, considering the assessee was out of India during proceedings, it was deemed appropriate to grant one more opportunity. The CIT-A had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed for non-prosecution by lower authorities should be restored to provide an opportunity to the assessee, especially when the assessee was abroad and the merits were not decided.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 142(1), 148, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.
O R D E R
These are the two appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10 and 2010 – 11 against the appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (learned CIT – A) dated 17/11/2023 wherein the appeal is filed by the assessee were disposed of Ex party which were filed against assessment order is passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the income tax act for both the years on 27/12/2016.
The brief facts of the case for assessment year 2009 – 10 shows that the assessee has not filed any return of income. Subsequently the information was received that assessee has indulged in a share trading activities in the shares of Caplin point and has earned short-term capital loss of ₹ 598,630/– long-term capital loss of ₹ 51,709/– and loss of ₹ 2,393,177/– from future and option transactions. However as per the broker note the assessee has made a short-term capital gain of ₹ 191,103. Further the future and option transactions also needs 2 ITA number 214 and 215/M/2024 Assessment year 2009 – 10 and 2010 – 11 kalpesh vaghasiya V ITO verification as assessee has not made any submission. Therefore the assessing officer recorded his reasons and issuing notice under section 148 of the act on 31/3/2016. Notice under section 142 (1) was also issued on 1/6/2016 where the sun of the assessee attended and stated that the assessee is abroad and as soon he comes back he will file the information. Thereafter nobody attended and therefore the learned assessing officer passed an assessment order under section 144 of the act wherein he made an addition to the extent of ₹ 191,103/– as short-term capital gain and addition under section 68 of the act of ₹ 4,250,000. Thus the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 4,441,100 by the assessment order dated 27/12/2016. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT – A wherein five different opportunities were given to the assessee but none appeared and therefore for non-prosecution the learned CIT – A dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
For assessment year 2010 – 11 as assessee has similarly not filed his return of income wherein it has been found that he has dealt in the shares of that company and has shown to have made a gain of ₹ 3,143,857 from National stock exchange and future and option transactions and short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,710,789/–. Further assessee has also on a speculation loss of ₹ 790,230/–. Accordingly the notice under section 148 of the act was issued and further notice under section 142 (1) was issued. Similarly it was promised by the sun of the assessee that assessee will appear as soon as he returns to the country. However as nobody turned up the learned assessing officer passed an assessment order under section 144 of the act wherein short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,710,789 and business income of ₹ 3,143,857 was assessed totaling to the total income of ₹ 4,854,646/– by an assessment order passed under section 144 of the act. Similarly the appeal was filed before the learned CIT – A but as none appeared