HANSRAJ MERCHANTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate its claim without seeking adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee company's return of income was assessed, and the Assessing Officer added Rs. 3 crores under Section 68 of the IT Act, treating it as unexplained share application money. The CIT(A) sustained this addition ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order sustaining the addition, and if the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Hansraj Merchants (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT, C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CA, Central Circle-19, L-7A, South Ext. Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAECM5633Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Sharma, CA Revenue by : Shri James Singsong, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 25.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2018 ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26th March, 2015 of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessee in the various grounds of appeal challenged the ex parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs.3 crores u/s 68 of the Act.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 4th October, 2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.1,74,340/-. The Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 22nd March, 2013, made addition of Rs.3 crores u/s 68 of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee has introduced its unaccounted money through share application and shown the same under the head ‘Capital reserve’ in the balance sheet. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). However, due to non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A) despite three opportunities given, the ld.CIT(A) in the ex parte order passed by him, sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance before the CIT(A) despite three opportunities granted by him, he was constrained to pass the ex parte order wherein he has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.3 crore u/s 68 of the IT Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law.
We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 25.10.2018 itself at the time of hearing.
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 →- Mohammed Khadeer Baig vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- V3 Enterprises PVT LTD vs. The State Of ApAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Zenith Metaplast(P) Limited vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Susmita Das vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise , Bhubaneswar Commissionerate,KhurdaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026