SUNDEEP SETHI,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1248/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sundeep Sethi, the appellant, who contested an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the Assessing Officer's decision adding a sum of Rs.18,19,250/- to the assessee's income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The addition was based on the sale proceeds of shares, which the assessee claimed were exempt under 'long term capital gains' as they were subjected to securities transaction tax. The CIT(A) initially dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717490 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Capital Gains; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1248/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sundeep Sethi…….……………………………...………………..….……….Appellant 164, M. G. Road, Burra Bazar, Kol-7. [PAN: ALAPS7114C] vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata ………..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sima Das Biswas, JCIT-Sr.DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 11, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : August 11, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.03.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. At the outset the Ld. AR stated that there is a delay of 374 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay citing reasonable cause for the belated filing. We after considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2015–16 declaring total income of Rs.12,79,510/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee for the reasons that the assessee in EI schedule of the said return has claimed exempt income under the head ‘long term capital gains’ from transaction on which securities transaction tax is paid. In Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1248/Kol/2025 Sundeep Sethi 2 response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring same income as was filed in original return of income. Accordingly notice under section 43(2) of the Act was issued and ultimately after considering the various aspects of the case, the Assessing Officer found that a sum of Rs.18,19,250/- arising out of sale proceeds of the shares added u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee did not appear or comply on the dates fixed for hearing. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex parte order upholding order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal, the learned AR submitted that the appeal was dismissed without proper hearing, and that the assessee may be given a final opportunity to substantiate its claims before the authority below. It was submitted that the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed on technical ground of non-compliance caused prejudice to the assessee and resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the authorities below and did not object to the matter being remanded for a fresh hearing. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record. We find that in the present case, the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance of the assessee simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer, which is not justified in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and fair play, we feel it necessary to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to explain and substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1248/Kol/2025 Sundeep Sethi 3 matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit necessary supporting documents. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings without fail. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 11th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 11.08.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "