SIDDHARTH D METHA ( HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 25(3), MUMBAI

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 28.8.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-35, Mumbai dated 23.6.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised three grounds in toto. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the grounds raised in this appeal and mentioned that the only issue involved in this appeal relates to the treatment given by the AO as business income to the gains earned on purchase and sale of shares. Assessee claimed the same a short term capital gains. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the orders of the authorities are prior to the Circular No.6/2016, dated 29.2.2016 issued by the CBDT. It is the prayer of the Ld Counsel for the assessee before us that the issue may be remanded to the file of the AO to decide the same in the light of the said Circular read with the order of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Dr. P.S. Pasricha in ITA No.6808/M/2003 (2001- 2002), dated 11.1.2008. 3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited Circular of the Board and the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we find, it is appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the AO to decide the matter afresh considering the above cited Circular as well as the decision of the Tribunal dated 11.1.2008 (supra) and other evidences, if any, in the matter. AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.