M/S. TORRENT RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate orders were passed without proper adjudication as contemplated by law. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The CIT(A) orders for multiple assessment years were passed ex parte, affirming the Assessing Officer's actions on various additions like share application money, Section 14A disallowance, Section 50C additions, and other expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) orders passed ex parte without proper adjudication are valid. Whether the appeals should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These three assessees’ appeal(s) for assessment year(s) 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2013-14 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, CIT(A)-15 & CIT(A)-4 Kolkata’s order(s) dated 06.02.2019, 31.045.2019 & 19.12.20019 passed in case Nos. 454/CIT(A)-17/Kol/17-18,169/CIT(A)-15/17-18/Cir.5211(1)/Kol &122/CIT(A)-4/19-20 involving proceedings u/s 143(3); respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’respectively. Heard the respective parties. Case file(s) perused.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance of the learned representative(s) appearing for the assessee(s) and the Revenue that the CIT(A)s’ respective orders under challenge have been passed ex parte thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating share application / premium sum(s) ₹4,50,26,611 as unexplained cash credits followed by the sec. 14A r.w.s. 8D disallowance of ₹26,611, sec. 50C and sec. 50 addition(s) of ₹29,25,656/- and puja expenses disallowance of ₹135,000/- and unexplained expenditure of ₹31,69,010/-, interest on late payment of ₹7,137/- and prior period expenses of ₹4,23,124/-; appeal-wise respectively, have been passed ex parte. The Revenue fails to dispute that none of the said lower appellate orders under challenge forming subject-matter of instant three cases has framed any point of determination followed by detailed adjudication thereupon as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore all the these appeals back to the & 217/Kol/2020 A.Ys 12-13, 15-16 & 113-14 Page 3 CIT(A) for their afresh adjudication of all the issue(s) raised therein within three effective opportunities of hearing to the corresponding taxpayers as per law.
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 Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026