9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore CIT(A). The Id. AR submitted that the noncompliance was neither deliberate nor intentional. He requested that another opportunity may be granted to the assessee to submit all the required explanations and details and plead his case on merit.
Considering the fact that both orders were almost ex-parte, We are of the view that the principles of natural justice would call for giving another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the CIT(A) re-adjudicates the entire issue afresh subject to payment of cost. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirming the action of the AO treating the Short-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 32,79,845 as the business income on misconceived inferences and hence, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law as well on facts and therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi erred in confirming the action of the AO denying the exempt income of Rs. 9,821 claimed u/s 10(34) of the Act and hence, not justified. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have grievously failed to appreciate in the right, lawful and proper perspectives the entire correspondences made in the course of assessment proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isted securities on which STT was paid and capital gain was declared on such transactions. The volume of such transactions was Rs. 100,09,96,274/- during the year and delivery of shares were not taken. Further, assessee had deposited cash in the bank account and subsequently entered into share transactions. It was found that assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 41,00,000/- in his bank account. No reply was filed to explain the source of cash deposited which was later invested in share transactions. Hence Rs. 41,00,000/- was added u/s 68 and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had also disclosed short-term capital gain (STCG) of Rs. 32,79,845/-. As the assessee had entered into lar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduce anything in support of his contention and to show that the findings of the AO are not correct. The CIT(A) also denied claim of exemption u/s 10(34), a sum of Rs. 9,281/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that reply was filed before the AO. He further submitted that the CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 12.02.2024 without hearing the assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice. The ld. AR contended that assessee had requested for adjournment which is clear from the appellate order. He requested that the matter may be set aside in the interest of justice and assessee should be given one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r referring to various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court i.e., Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi & Ors., (2023 SCC OnLine 1377), Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal & Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 612 and Blue Heavens Garments vs. M/s Kids Collections, (2010 SCC OnLine Del 1124) held that adjournments and pass overs are not a matter of right but only a courtesy extended by the Court. The Hon'ble High Court imposed further cost of Rs. 20,000/- apart from upholding the order of the Industrial Tribunal imposing cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the petitioner. Considering all these facts and decisions cited supra, we are of the view that the assessee was negligent and non-cooperative before the AO and CIT(A). The appellant sought various adjournment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
