POSITIVE TRADECOMM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte and did not consider the assessee's evidence. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer treated the assessee's share capital/premium of Rs. 46,08,56,473/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming this action without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's evidence regarding share capital. Whether the share capital should be treated as unexplained cash credits.
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 J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM
Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Jayanta Khanra, Sr. DR, JCIT सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 17/06/2020 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/06/2020 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) - 18, Kolkata dated 25.01.2018 passed in Case No.1777/2015-16/CIT(A)-18/Wd-9(3)/F.SLNo.2258/17-18/Kol involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s share capital/premium of Rs.46,08,56,473/- as Section 68 unexplained cash credits in assessment order dated 23.03.2015; has been passed ex parte without even indicating as to whether the relevant notice(s) of hearing stood served or not. Coupled with this, the assessee’s clinching plea that it had filed voluminous documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer for proving identity, genuineness and Positive Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. creditworthiness of the investor parties which have nowhere been considered has also been remained unrebutted from the Revenue side. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) on account of the fact that its concerned director was not available at station in the relevant time span of the lower appellate hearings so as to pursue its grievance. We deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that larger interest of justice would be met in case the learned CIT(A) decides the matter afresh as per law. More particularly when there is no adjudication on merits in the CIT(A)’s ex parte order under challenge. We order accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2020.
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 →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026