LAMBODAR DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to Legal Aid Services within 60 days. Failure to pay the cost will result in the confirmation of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition on account of cash credits. The assessee failed to respond to the AO's notice, including a Section 133(6) notice, and did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, nor did anyone represent the assessee before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition for cash credits was justified given the assessee's consistent non-compliance and non-representation before tax authorities, and if the assessee should be granted further opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071270816(1) dated 16.12.2024 for the AY 2011-12.
None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that in the course of the assessment the ld. AO has made an addition representing cash credits. It was the submission that before the ld. AO no reply had been filed by the assessee. It was also the submission that there was no representation before the ld. CIT (A). It was the submission that even before the Tribunal no one has appeared. We vehemently support the order of the ld. CIT (A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2025.
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
