PRADEEP KUMAR GARG AND SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-37(3),KOL., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 726/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 November 2023AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 42,52,750/- as undisclosed income. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order despite an adjournment application being filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment application. The core issue was the validity of the ex parte assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : November 28, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.05.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The assessee in this appeal has agitated the confirmation of addition of Rs.42,52,750/- made by the Assessing Officer taking the long-term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act.

3.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the same is Assessment year: 2013-14 Pradeep Kumar Garg and Sons (HUF)

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →