LIFEWOOD AGENCIES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not confirm if hearing notices were served and lacked detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The CIT(A) affirmed the addition of Rs. 2,77,25,000/- as unexplained cash credits. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of investors.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal without confirming service of hearing notices and providing detailed adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”
Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, V.P & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM
Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 08/06/2020 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 17, Kolkata dated 07.03.2019 passed in Case No.175/CIT(A)-17/Kol/17-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Case file suggests at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action adding the assessee’s share capital/premium of Rs.2,77,25,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act since lacking genuineness/creditworthiness.
The Revenue’s case in tune with the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order is that the assessee neither appeared in lower appellate proceedings nor has it discharged his onus of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investor parties.
Lifewood Agencies (P) Ltd.
We notice in this backdrop that although the CIT(A)’s order in para no.2 indicates that he had fixed the assessee’s appeal for hearing on 24.01.2018, 06.02.2019 & 21.02.2019, there is not even a whisper as to whether the same had been actually served hearing notice or not. Coupled with this, the CIT(A)’s order has not discussed the relevant issues as well followed by a detailed adjudication u/s 250(6) of the Act. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2020.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026