SANKATMOCHAN DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted it back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to submit documents, and the CIT(A) was to call for a remand report from the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns additions made to share application money and disallowance of expenses. The assessee contended that they did not get an opportunity to file relevant documents and submissions before the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions to share application money and disallowance of expenses without proper opportunity and consideration of assessee's submissions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 02.12.2019 which is arising out of assessment order framed u/s 143(3) read with section 144 of the I.T. Act dated 26.03.2015 by ITO, Ward- 5(1), Kolkata. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “i. (a)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- received as share application money u/s 68 on misconception and without properly appreciating the written explanation by assessee (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- when all the ingredients like identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of share applicants were submitted (refer paa 5 of order) (c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld, CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- saying ‘incomplete compliance’ by assessee.
ii. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 11,000/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D when there was no exempt income.
M/s. Sankatmochan Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 iii. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground(s) on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.”
At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee requested that since the assessee did not get any opportunity to file relevant documents as well as submissions before the ld. assessing officer and ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing before the authorities below. Therefore, in such circumstances one more opportunity should be given to the assessee and the issue raised in the instant appeal may be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued in support of the order passed by the authorities below.
We after hearing both the parties under the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that since the order of the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. AO proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and necessary documents were not filed by the assessee before the authorities below. We in the interest of justice set aside the impugned order and remit it back to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue raised before us by way of a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to submit the documents to advance its arguments before the authorities below at the time of hearing and doing so, ld. CIT(A) would call a remand report from the ld. AO on such documents filed by the assessee.
We also direct the assessee to remain vigilant in receiving notices of hearing from ld. CIT(A) and should not request for any further adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given proper opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.02.2023.
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 Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026