AASHIRWAD VINCOM PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(1),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked a decision on the merits of the case. Consequently, the tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing to present their explanations and evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return declaring a loss was scrutinized, leading to an addition of Rs.14.97 crores under Section 68 for unexplained share capital, among other issues. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the appeal on its merits, and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 14A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: October 10, 2025 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.05.25 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the return of income 2. for the year under consideration was filed declaring a total loss of Rs.5,11,731/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason, (i) to examine large interest expenses relatable to exempt investment u/s 14A, (ii) large value commodity exchange transactions and (iii) low net profit or loss shown from large gross receipts. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessee company appeared and submitted primary details. On Aashirwad Vincom Pvt. Ltd verification of balance sheet, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee company had raised share capital of Rs.14,97,00,000/- during the F.Y under consideration and also debited Rs.17,22,211/- as late payment charges. Due to incapable of giving any clarification by the assessee regarding the increase in share capital during the year, the Assessing Officer added Rs.14,97,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed by passing an ex parte order as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The ld. AR instead of arguing on merits of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration by affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing as the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and not on the merits and also the assessee failed to prove its case before the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and particularly on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it appears to us that there was no compliance before the ld. CIT(A) which has resulted into passing the ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee did not file any explanation in order to submit any response to the notices issued and the order of the ld. CIT(A) have not been passed on merits rather passed on technical issue. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the assessee 2 Aashirwad Vincom Pvt. Ltd of hearing. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting necessary explanations and evidences to substantiate its claim.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 10th October , 2025.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026