TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns CIT(A)'s orders on capital gains, emphasizes fair proceedings</h1> <h3>Shri Adish Oswal Versus The DCIT Circle-7, Ludhiana And Shri Ashok Kumar Oswal (Deceased) through Mrs. Manju Oswal (Legal Heir) Versus The DCIT, Ludhiana, Punjab</h3> Shri Adish Oswal Versus The DCIT Circle-7, Ludhiana And Shri Ashok Kumar Oswal (Deceased) through Mrs. Manju Oswal (Legal Heir) Versus The DCIT, Ludhiana, ... Issues:Appeal against orders of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana, delay in filing appeal, addition of long term capital gains under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, denial of natural justice, application of mind by Ld. CIT(A), confrontation of evidence, principles of natural justice.Analysis:The judgment involves two appeals by the Assessee and the legal heir of a deceased assessee against separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana, each dated 01/06/2019. The issues being common, the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order for convenience. The first appeal (ITA No. 1417/Chd/2019) faced a 44-day delay in filing, attributed to the gatekeeper's oversight in delivering the order. The delay was condoned after the Assessee's plea, supported by an affidavit. The main grounds of appeal included challenges to the addition of long term capital gains and denial of natural justice.The facts of the case revealed that the Assessee traded in Penny stock of a company, earning substantial profits claimed as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). The Assessing Officer (A.O.) raised concerns about the transactions' commercial nature, suspecting tax evasion. Despite the Assessee's submissions on legitimate trading through stock exchanges and banking channels, the A.O. applied section 68 of the Act to make the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing lack of proof of genuineness and creditworthiness, and reliance on precedents.In the appeal, the Assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering detailed submissions, misstating LTCG amount, and not confronting relevant evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed facts of a different case, leading to confusion. The Tribunal found a breach of natural justice principles, setting aside the case for fresh adjudication with proper consideration of Assessee's submissions and confrontation of evidence.In the second appeal (ITA No. 1418/Chd/2019), a similar delay in filing was condoned, mirroring the first case's circumstances. The judgment allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for due process and adherence to natural justice principles in tax assessments.The judgment highlights the importance of fair proceedings, proper application of law, and adherence to principles of natural justice in tax disputes, ensuring that Assessees have a meaningful opportunity to present their case and confront evidence used against them.
TaxTMI 