Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47188 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-04-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2021-2022
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 02/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Kusumben Mansukhbhai Sorathiya No. 10, Kasturi Bungalow, Street No. 4, Silver Stone-3, Nana Mava Road, Rajkot – 360001 Vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 1(1), Rajkot – 360001 थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BFXPS6853E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 07/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement :08 /04 /2025 आदेश/ O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 20.10.2023, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 24.12.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: ITA No. 02/RJT/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Kusumben Mansukhbhai Sorathiya 1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The grounds of appeal may kindly be decided on merits. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of loss from features & options of Rs. 4,00,47,383/-. The disallowance may kindly be deleted. 3. That at the outset, the registrar of this tribunal has being into the notices, that the appeal filed delay for 368 days by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee filed an application for condonation for delay and affidavit, which is mentioned below: “4 The appellant had filed an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the \"NFAC\"]. The appellant is not conversant with the emails or other electronic media. The NFAC sent hearing notices on email id of the appellant. But the appellant did not know about the issue of notice as she never used her email id. The NFAC passed the Appellate Order and sent on email. As none of the correspondence was in physical form, the appellant never knew about the same. 5. Later on 16.12.2024, a Penalty notice u/s. 270A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration was issued on Email ID of appellant as also email id of consultant of appellant i.e. busa_ca@yahoo.com. The consultant enquired about the appeal and found that appellate order was passed much earlier. 6. Thus the delay of around 432 days in filing of appeal was occurred. The appeal is filed after due date due to the reasons stated above and unintentional lapse on the part of the appellant. 7. In view of the above, the appellant humbly prays before Your Honour that the delay in filing above appeal may kindly be condoned and may please be admitted and decided on merits by exercising of Your Honour's powers. In this connection, the appellant begs to invite your kind attention to the decision to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Kathiji (MST) (1987) 167 ITR 471.” 4. That the Ld. AR of the assessee also draw out attention towards the judgement passed by the Supreme Court has, in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in ITA No. 02/RJT/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Kusumben Mansukhbhai Sorathiya absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal filed after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone the delay, and admit the appeal and proceed further for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed his Return of Income for AY 2021-22 on 30.12.2024 declaring an income of Rs. 24,38,740/- vide acknowledgement No. 587583 0606301221. Later on the case was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ by faceless Assessment Scheme 2019. The assessee has made share trading in Future & Option and the loss incurred from the trading of Future & Options derivatives business. The assessee has claimed Business Loss amounting to Rs. 4,00,47,383/-. The assessee was asked to provide me/in the details of the same. The assessee has sold an immovable property in the end of Financial Year on 12.02.2021 at sales consideration of Rs. 4.52.92.500/- and shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4.23.22 585. The same has been set off against the business loss as claimed by the assessee from share trading. The assessee was show caused vide notice dated 05.12.2022 as to why loss claimed from share should not be treated as speculative loss and set off claimed against Long Term Capital Gain and other heads of the income should not be disallowed as per provision of Section 73 of the IT Act. The loss claimed by the assessee is speculative loss and not a business loss and set off claimed against the other heads of income amounting to Rs. 4,00,47,383/- is hereby disallowed as per section 73 of the Act, and assessment computed as under: SI No Description Amount (in INR) 1. Income as per Return of Income filed Rs. 24,38,740/- 2. Variation as para 3.9 Rs. 4,00,47,383/- 3. Total Income determined Rs. 4,24,86,123/- ITA No. 02/RJT/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Kusumben Mansukhbhai Sorathiya 6. The assessee filed an appeal in the office before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices for hearing via e-mail. In response to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant did not filed any submission. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed and ex-parte order dated 24.12.2022 with following observation: “During the appeal proceedings, no documentary evidences have been submitted by the appellant to verify her claim in-spite of multiple opportunities being provided by this office as stated above. As evidenced from the Assessment Order. explanation produced during the assessment proceedings was perused by the Assessing Officer and was not satisfactory and hence unacceptable. The appellant did not made any submission supporting her claim during the appeal proceedings, hence, I do not have any documentary evidences on record to provide relief to the appellant sought merely through her ground of appeal. In view of the above, order of AO is upheld and the ground is noted as dismissed.” 7. That the assessee challenged the legality and validity of the appeal and filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 24.12.2022 before us. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not conversant with the emails or other electronic mode. The assessee was not aware about the notice for hearing of the case. Therefore, the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be granted. 9. On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). However, Ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the prayer of the assessee. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has issued several notices for hearing of the case. We note that the assessee has appeared before the Ld. AO and furnished all the documents. It ITA No. 02/RJT/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Kusumben Mansukhbhai Sorathiya is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 08/04/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot (True Copy) \u0012दनांक/ Date: 08/04/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "
AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by Kusumben Mansukhbhai Sorathiya against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the disallowance of a business loss claimed from trading in Future & Options amounting to Rs. 4,00,47,383. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-submission of documents by the appellant, who was not conversant with electronic communication. The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair play.
