आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”), dated 17.12.2025 passed under Section (u/s.) 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the assessment year 2020-21, which in turn arises out of the order of assessment dated 30.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) read with Section (r.w.s.) 144B of the Act.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows:

1. The order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 17.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083783367(1) for the above-mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case.

2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in reckoning / treating / shifting the “Short Term Capital Loss” reported in the return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration to the tune of Rs. 54,23,30,150/- as “Business Loss” in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.

3. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that shifting of head of loss suffered during the course of appellant being an investor by reckoning the same to be in nature of the business was wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law, thereby vitiating the impugned order passed in its entirety.

4. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the fact of return(s) of income filed for the earlier assessment year(s) / assessment order(s) passed in reckoning the appellant as an investor and not as a trader in shares and securities being consistently accepted by the Income Tax Department, the decision in arbitrarily shifting the head of losses suffered by the appellant as business loss as against the same being reported Short Term Capital Loss should be reckoned as bad in law.

5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that mere fact of the appellant entering into substantial volume of transactions would not alter the nature of the profit/loss earned as well as the reporting of the same in the return of income and further ought to have appreciated that such voluminous transactions would not lead to the automatic conclusion of reckoning the same as business activity, thereby negating the related findings in the impugned order.

6. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the explanation offered by the appellant for entering into substantial transactions in the month of March 2020 was not considered in proper perspective as well as the intention of the appellant to minimize the loss due to multiple reasons including the panic selling in the month of March 2020 due to COVID 19 Pandemic, thereby vitiating the impugned order in entirety.

7. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that in any event having not independently examined the circumstances leading to reporting of such transactions as Short Term Capital Gains as well as the nature of the transactions, the sustenance of the action of the Assessing Officer in reckoning the same as business loss was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

8. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the judicial precedents as well as the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, thereby vitiating the passing of impugned appellate order on account of gross non application of mind.

9. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the entire re-computation of taxable total income was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

10. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the scrutiny assessment order was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

11. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having not adhered to the prescription of faceless ap