SINGHI CAPITAL FINANCE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY TRADELINK CARRYING CO. PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA

ITA 725/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2026AY 2012-20133 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was an apparent error in the facts and issues discussed in the impugned appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, in its factual background, discussed an addition of Rs. 5,60,000/- and that the assessee had not appeared for various hearing notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and on merits for want of evidence. Given these discrepancies and the assessee's submission regarding factual errors and non-consideration of submissions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to comply with the hearing notices of the Ld. CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Singhi Capital Finance Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 23.01.2026. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee's grievance stemmed from an addition of Rs. 49,79,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained share application money, allegedly without providing an opportunity to be heard. The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred by discussing facts and issues related to AY 2013-14 while adjudicating the appeal for AY 2012-13, and also failed to consider the assessee's submissions. The revenue, represented by the Senior Departmental Representative, relied on the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 by discussing facts and issues pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, and failing to consider the assessee's contentions and submissions, thereby violating principles of natural justice and proper adjudication? Assessee's Contention: The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) committed a factual error by discussing issues and facts related to AY 2013-14 in the order for AY 2012-13. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) allegedly failed to consider the assessee's submissions and contentions. The assessee prayed for the order to be set aside and for a fresh adjudication on merits, considering their submissions. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR relied on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond reliance on the lower appellate authority's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Amit Shah, AR

For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR

Hearing: 31.08.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 23.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13 (Appeal No.CIT(A)/Kolkata-2/120270/2015-16).

The grievance raised in this appeal is against the addition made by the Assessing officer of an amount of Rs 49,79,000/- towards unexplained share application money without giving opportunity vide his order dated 12.03.2015 and against the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23-01-2026 in adjudicating the appeal on

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →