MAYANK SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ITO 1(2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 63/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 April 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, one more opportunity was given to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold shares of Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. and claimed long-term capital gains, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) decision made ex-parte was justified, and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 10(38),Section 68,Section 115BE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ AGRA

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 01.04.2025Pronounced: 01.04.2025

Date of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 25.01.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15 arising out of order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 29.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Gwalior.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the appeal is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record.

3.

Brief facts of the case: In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee had filed ITR-4 showing salary income of Rs.1,65,000/- and income from business Rs.8,91,329/- and income from other sources of Rs.1,24,685/-. The Assessing Officer noted that during the year, the assessee had sold 15000 shares of the company Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. (scrip name Turbo Tech) and had declared long term capital gains amounting to Rs.25,75,402/- and claimed it as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer on the basis of enquiries made by the Investigation Wing of Kolkata and as per the facts discussed in the assessment order held that the shares of Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was a penny stock and taxed the entire receipts amounting to Rs.26,14,250/- on sale of the said shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s 115BE of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

7.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A).

Therefore, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent its case effectively before the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to pass an order afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st April, 2025.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →