ARATI PURKAIT,KOLKATA V. ACIT- CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

ITA 1066/KOL/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Arati Purkait against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which denied her exempt income claim under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The denial was based on findings related to the trading of penny stocks, specifically those of CCL, which were under scrutiny following an investigation report and a SEBI order. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee in both the lower appellate proceedings and the Tribunal hearing, leading to an ex parte hearing. The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to rebut the findings of the Investigation Wing and SEBI's order. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471008 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN KUMAR MEENA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Bogus
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1066/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arati Purkait Flat No. IC, Mainak Residency, 207, N. S. Road, Kolkata- 700040. (PAN: AIYPP9680P) Vs ACIT, Circle-15(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054185803(1) dated 06.07.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. A perusal of the appeal record shows that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 32 days. A separate condonation of delay petition has been placed in file. However, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay 2 ITA No.1066/Kol/2023 Arati Purkait. AY: 2013-14 and admit the appeal for hearing after considering the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR and the available material placed on file. 4. A perusal of the appeal record shows that the appeal has been filed by the assessee in October, 2023. The appeal has been posted on multiple occasions and on all occasions the assessee has sought time and on a few occasions the Bench did not function. Today, when the appeal of the assessee is called for hearing, we note that on 30.01.2025 notice under RPAD has also been sent to the assessee for posting the case for hearing today and inspite of that none appeared today. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is being heard ex parte qua the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the issues involved in the appeal were in regard to bogus claim u/s. 10(38) of the Act. It was the submission that the penny stocks of CCL have been dealt with by the assessee and on the basis of the Investigation Report received by the Assessing Officer and the order of the SEBI in the case of CCL International, the exempt income claimed by the assessee u/s. 10(38) of the Act was denied. It was the submission that even before the Tribunal, the assessee has not represented the matter. It was the prayer of the Ld. Sr. DR that the orders of the lower authorities may be upheld. 5. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR. We have also taken into account the fact that the assessee chose not to represent her case before the Ld. CIT(A) and has also failed to represent her case before the Tribunal. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the Assessing Officer in his assessment order has primarily based his findings on the report of the Investigation Wing of the Department and SEBI’s order. A further perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer shows that the details of the findings of the Investigation Wing and the statement on which the Investigation Wing had placed its reliance were not put across to the assessee for the assessee’s rebuttal. Thus, there is a clear violation 3 ITA No.1066/Kol/2023 Arati Purkait. AY: 2013-14 of principles of natural justice. This being so, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and confronting the assessee in the available material. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the assessee to file all evidences that she proposes to rely upon for making the assessment. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 5th March, 2025 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Smt. Arati Purkait 2. The Respondent. ACIT, Circle-15(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata. 6. Guard file. True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "