S. K. TREXIM (P) LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was indeed passed by the CIT(A) despite the assessee's claims of not being given fair opportunities. The Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a more effective opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice and did not deal with the merits of the additions made by the AO. The assessee requested one more opportunity before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee and without adjudicating the merits of the additions made by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.12.2018 of ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-1 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’]. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and as such, is not sustainable in law.
2. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without dealing with the merit of the additions made by the AO. 3.(a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 92,80,000/- S.K. Trexim (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 made by the AO on account of bogus share capital by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. (b) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,56,53,787/- being 10% of gross turnover of Rs. 15,65,37,868/- being the income estimated by the AO after rejecting the book results. (c) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,92,26,198/- made by the AO on account of entire payables without giving proper time and opportunity to explain the creditors of the company.
The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal
or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”
2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal contesting various disallowances and addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the assessee has raised a primary ground that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex- parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assesses and on perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), we find that fair opportunities were indeed given to the assessee for representation which was not complied by the assessee. The ld. AR before us prayed for one more opportunity before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR also assured that he will not take any adjournment before the ld. CIT(A) and would cooperate in appeal. We find that ex-parte order has been passed by the ld. CIT(A). This is a fit case for remanding the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) to give more effective opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to cooperate with expeditious disposal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by not seeking any adjournment except due to the exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. In view of the above discussion, the various grounds raised by the S.K. Trexim (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 assessee on merits are left open and remand back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05.2023
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Smt. Amna Baghel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Harshita Seeds vs. Idbi BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Rajdeep vs. Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026