Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 164 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay of 884 days - in response to the query from the Bench what prevented steps took by the assessee for filing of the appeals before 22.05.2016, ld. Counsel, referring the revision proceedings and the orders thereof, relied heavily on the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07 and submitted that likely favourable relief given by the CIT(A) for this assessment year and further years under revision as well - HELD THAT:- We find the reasons given by the ld. AR for the assessee are without merits. We further find, when there is a revision order and an adverse order against the assessee then why the assessee should not have filed the appeal in time, where the issue under consideration was undisputedly decided against the assessee. Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the delay is not condonable and the reasons given by the applicability of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 1061 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is directly applied to this case.Accordingly, the delay is not condoned. Speculation loss in the light of amended provisions of section 43(5)(d) - assessee entered into Futures and Options (F&O) trading activities and earned loss and said loss was claimed as ‘speculation loss’ and not claimed the same as ‘business profits’ of the assessee - CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and passed an order directing the Assessing Officer to withdraw the said relief granted to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Fresh assessment orders were made by the Assessing Officer and the loss was treated as ‘speculative loss’ denied the set off against the income of other heads. These facts are identical to that of the facts of Madhuri Kotecha [2019 (8) TMI 1469 - ITAT PUNE] case, who is spouse of the present assessee as mentioned that the provisions of section 43(5)(d) of the Act was amended and the said amendment is found to be operational prospectively useful to the assessee - we are of the opinion that these five appeals should be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. CIT(A) is directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal in the case of Madhuri Kotecha (supra). The assessee is also directed to demonstrate the comparability of the facts before the CIT(A) - Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes
|