What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper adjudication. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order affirming the Assessing Officer's action of treating share capital/premium as unexplained cash credits. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not frame points of determination or provide detailed adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal when passing an ex-parte order without framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication.

C. G. Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23 Kolkata’s order dated 24.04.2017 passed in case No.144/CIT(A)-23/Tech-2/16-17, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex pare whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s share capital / premium amounting to ₹85,24,00,000/- unexplained cash credits. Mr. Roy invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s order passed ex parte after taking recourse to affixation of the lower appellate hearing notice through Inspector of Income Tax. His only case is that although the assessee has been allegedly to have been served through the impugned affixation, the ITA No.1167/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 C.G. Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Tech-2, Kol. Page 2 CIT(A) has nowhere framed points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication u/s.250(6) of the Act. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the impugned addition since the assessee could not prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of its investor parties. We find no merit in Revenue’s technical arguments since the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion under challenge has not considered all the evidence submitted during the course of assessment forming part of case file. We deem it appropriate to restore the instant issue back to the CIT(A) for afresh hearing within three effective opportunities of hearing as per law. The assessee or its authorized representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30.05.2020 along with a copy of the instant order for further consequential proceedings.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 22/01/2020 (लेखा सद&य) ("या(यक सद&य) ( A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp )दनांकः- 22/01/2020 कोलकाता । आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-C.G. Securities Pvt. Ltd.2, Lal Bazar Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata-001

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Tech-2, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Sq. 6th Fl,Kolkata-69 3. संबं4धत आयकर आयु5त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु5त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. 8वभागीय "(त(न4ध, आयकर अपील"य अ4धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड= फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ4धकरण, कोलकाता ।

C. G. SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments