Shahnawaz Mustakkhan Pathan vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The present appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee contended that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was an ex parte order as the notices or communications of hearing were sent via email despite the assessee's request to avoid email communication. The assessee argued that this resulted in them being unheard before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment was framed with an addition to the assessee's income of Rs.37,98,608/- on account of alleged profits from Multi Commodity Exchange transactions. The assessee had returned income of Rs.13,160/-, but failed to provide a proper explanation for the income from commodity exchange transactions, leading to the estimation of net profit at 0.5% of the total transactions, resulting in the addition of Rs.37,98,608/- to the assessee's income.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was an ex parte order due to unserved notices?
• 2. Whether the addition to the assessee's income due to profits from Multi Commodity Exchange transactions was justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Prompt Commodities Limited Vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Kuldeep Singh, S/o Shri Bagicha Singh v. The ITO, Ward 2(3), Abohar

  Amritsar bench

• Shri. Kumaraswamy Gangadharaiah Kallur Vs. DCIT

  Bangalore benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• DCIT, Circle-3(2), Kolkata vs. Sincere Commodities And Derivatives Markets Pvt. Ltd

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-14 & 2014-15Dismissed

• Ujair Ahmad vs ITO

  Delhi 'E' Bench: New Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Sanjay Narendra Bansal Vs. DCIT-8(2)(1)

  SMC BENCH, MUMBAI benchAY 2014-15Allowed