TRIMUDRA CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, not on merits. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's plea to re-examine the receipt of share capital and premium in the correct financial year, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to large share premium received. After an initial addition was deleted by CIT(A), the ITAT remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee failed to comply with notices, leading to the addition being reinstated and the appeal being dismissed for non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the share capital and premium were received in the year under appeal or a preceding year, and whether the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present its case before the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 263,Section 147,Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: ShriRajesh Kumar & ShriPradip Kumar Choubey
IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before ShriRajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and ShriPradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.2680/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Trimudra Credit Limited……………………………….………………………….Appellant 8, Lyons Range, Kolkata- 700001 [PAN No. AABCT0282B] Vs. ITO, Ward 4(1)……………………..…………….………... Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee, 700069 Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR ,appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT(DR),appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 16, 2026 Date of pronouncing theorder : April 28 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) passed under Section 143(3)r.w.s254 of the Assessment Year 2012-13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The appellant is an individual assessee. The appellant filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.2.46,957/-. The case was selected for Scrutiny assessment through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) with the reason "large share premium received. Accordingly, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 09.03.2015, determining total income to Rs. 18,74,16,960/- Being aggrieved with the order, appellant filed appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A)-2, Kolkata deleted the entire addition vide order dated 30.06.2015. The Department filed appeal to Hon'ble ITAT. Kolkata against the order of Ld.CIT(A). The Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata vide its order dated 11.01.2019, has remand the
ITA No.2680/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2012-13 matter to AO for fresh consideration only on condition that the appellant shall comply on support of its claim. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) were issued to appellant requiring him to furnish the requisite details but, the appellant failed to comply with the notices and did not file any response. In the absence of documentary evidence of primary source of its capital raised, the entire amount of money received on account of issue of shares along with the quantum paid for issue of shares was added back to the income in the assessment order u/s. 254/263/147/143(3) of the Act passed by the AO on 30.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the said assessee preferred appeal wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of non-appearance to the notice issued.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us.
The Ld. AR instead of arguing the of the case has only prayed that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration as the AO did not consider the case of the assessee in true perspective. The Ld. AR submits that Ld. AO be directed to pass fresh order after hearing the assessee as out of the total share capital and premium considered for addition was not received during the year under appeal. The submission of the AR is that the amounts were received in the preceding financial year and this fact is not been considered by the AO. The Ld. AR submits that since the matter requires for fresh adjudication on accounting basis hence appeal of the assessee be restored to the file of the AO not to the CIT(A) though the order passed by the CIT(A) is an ex-party order.
The Ld. DR by supporting the impugned order has submitted that the assessee did not cooperate in the proceedings before the AO nor before the CIT(A) though Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata has remanded the matter to AO for fresh consideration only on condition that assessee shall comply in support of his claim. 2
ITA No.2680/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2012-13 5. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution as there were non-compliance on behalf of the assessee. The order passed by the CIT(A) is not on merit rather he dismissed the appeal in limine. The contention of the AR is that appeal of the assessee be restored to the file of the AO to consider that whether the amount received of Rs. 18,69,28,400during the year under appeal or the same was received in the preceding financial year. Going over the facts of the case,considering the submission and for the interest of justice we remitted the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO for fresh consideration in the light of the submission of the AR as discussed above. The order passed by the Lower Authority are hereby set aside. The appeal is remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration by affording an opportunity to the assessee to hear.
As a result, the appeal of the assessee has been allowed for the statistical purpose.
Kolkata, the 28th
March, 2026.
ITA No.2680/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2012-13 Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:.28. 04.2026. DC, PS
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
ITA No.2680/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2012-13
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026