KAPIL HOODA HUF,DELHI V. ITO, DELHI

ITA 2586/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kapil Hooda HUF, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which itself was based on an earlier assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed by 417 days, but the Tribunal condoned the delay based on the reasons provided in the condonation petition. The primary contention in the appeal was the improper consideration of certain trading gains and the lack of opportunity to represent before the NFAC. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses, such as the use of an incorrect email ID for communication, which led to the decision to set aside the NFAC's order and remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772487 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIV KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Transactions in derivatives
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2586/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kapil Hooda HUF, 43, SFS Flats Hasuz Khas Apartments, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Delhi PAN: AAJHK2269N Assessee by : Shri Shiv Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No.2586/Del/2025 for AY 2016-17 arises out of the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058673773(1) dated 12.12.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) by ITO, Ward-32(5), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 417 days before me. Considering the reasons reduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: – “Ground No.1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts & in law in not looking into audit report about the gains of Rs. 16,13,521 from routine trading transactions taken since (which the appellant had already considered the above gains in the P & L a/c) which was culminated in income. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2586/Del/2025 Kapil Hooda HUF Page | 2 Ground No.2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts & in law in not looking into the basis of calculating gain/loss on future and option and commodities which was reported in audit report which the appellant had already considered the above gains/loss in the P & 2 La/c which was culminated in income. Further in the recast account, the CIT(A) was not justified for not consideration of security transaction tax (STT) and commodity transaction tax (CTT). It is prayed that the doubly considered gain of Rs. 16,13,521 may kindly be declared to be deleted & STT & CSTT be allowed while computing income. Ground No.3: That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that while computing income after recasting the accounts proper opportunity was not granted by the AO & due to circumstances 3 beyond control, assesse could not represent before the CIT(A). It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly accept assessee's contentions & submission on computation of income after recasting of account by the AO. Ground No.4: The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or substitute any ground at the time or before hearing of appeal.” 4. The preliminary issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in passing an ex parte order in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the ld NFAC, I find that the ld NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits giving its independent finding. The Learned AR before us stated that the notices were sent in Email to a different mail ID other than that mentioned in Form No. 35. Even the assessment order was framed exparte without securing the presence of the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay, I deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with ld AO for expeditious disposal of the set aside assessment by not taking unwarranted adjournments. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2586/Del/2025 Kapil Hooda HUF Page | 3 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2025. -Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/08/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "