RAJKUMAR MUNNILAL GUPTA,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

ITA 30/SRT/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rajkumar Munnilal Gupta against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed as time-barred. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer included undisclosed profits from futures and options trading and equity stocks, totaling Rs. 19,25,766. The assessee's appeal was initially dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, attributed to the assessee's absence for medical treatment of a family member. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found consistent non-compliance and non-cooperation from the assessee but decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fair hearing on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314173 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Business income; Transactions in derivatives; Futures and options

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 30/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rajkumar Munnilal Gupta, 15, Devi Darshan Society, Nr. Police Colony, Bamroli Road, Pandesara, Surat-394210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat [PAN No.BDJPG9158A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None for the Assessee Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 19.10.2024 passed for A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) has wrongly rejected my application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The ‘A’ requests your Honour to provide one more opportunity to explain the case as ‘A’ was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing before the ld. CIT(A), the ‘A’ requests to set aside the appeal to the file of CIT(A). 3. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the sole ground of addition of Rs. 18,54,410/-.” ITA No.30/Srt/2025 Rajkumar Munnilla Gupta vs. ITO Asst. Year –2021-22 - 2– 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 13 days. The delay of 13 days is condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made net profit from futures and options trading amounting to ₹18,85,410/- which had not been offered to tax. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made net profit of ₹40,356/- in equity stocks, which again had not been offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued several notices of hearing, in response to which the assessee did not appear and filed only a single reply in which the assessee did not give any satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, the assessing officer made addition of ₹18,85,410/- and ₹40,356/- to the income of the assessee. While passing the order, the assessing officer made the following observations: “4.4 Conclusion drawn: The assessee has not complied to the showcause notice till date nor submitted any reply. Therefore, it is evident that the assessee has no substantial documents or valid explanation to counter the variation proposed. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not furnish the requisite documents as called for. The assessee failed to explain the discrepancy in the Profit & Loss statement of F&O trading. In the absence of any submission from the assessee in this respect, the profit of Rs.18,85,410/- form F&O Trading and Rs.40,356/- from share trading is to be treated as undisclosed business income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings U/S.270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for under-reporting of income.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the appeal was time barred by a period of 160 days. When asked to provide an explanation for the delay, the assessee gave a very brief explanation that the appeal could not be filed in time since: “the assessee was out of station for medical treatment for a family ITA No.30/Srt/2025 Rajkumar Munnilla Gupta vs. ITO Asst. Year –2021-22 - 3– member”. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that in absence of satisfactory explanation, the delay of 160 days in filing of appeal could not be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment application was filed by the counsel for the assessee with the reason “I request your honour to adjourn the hearing as I am out of station”. When the matter was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there has been consistent non- compliance and non-cooperation by the assessee all throughout the proceedings both at the stage of assessment, at the appellate stage before Ld. CIT(Appeals) and also before us as well. However, in interest of justice, one final opportunity is given to the assessee and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to present its case on merits, since there has been no explanation/supporting documents which had been filed by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings before any of the Tax Authorities to take a considered call on the matter. However, we make it clear that in case there is further non- cooperation on part of the assessee before the assessing officer, the assessing officer would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, on the basis of material available on record, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 06/05/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/05/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY ITA No.30/Srt/2025 Rajkumar Munnilla Gupta vs. ITO Asst. Year –2021-22 - 4– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat 1. Date of dictation 05.05.2025(Dictated by Hon’ble Member on his dragon software) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 05.05.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 05.05.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .05.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 06.05.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 06.05.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "