AMAR IRON UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 3(3), KOLKATA

ITA 2847/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 February 2026AY 2011-20123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in ITA No. 2847/KOL/2025, the CIT(A) had inadvertently referred to facts of a different assessee concerning Section 2(22)(e) while adjudicating the issue of share capital under Section 68. This procedural error led to the confirmation of the addition of ₹30 lacs. To ensure the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. In ITA No. 2848/KOL/2025, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order concerning the addition under Section 2(22)(e) because the assessee failed to appear despite opportunities. To serve the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, this appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals before the ITAT Kolkata against the orders of the CIT(A), Kolkata-21, dated 10.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2011-12. In ITA No. 2847/KOL/2025, the assessee challenged the addition of ₹30 lacs made by the AO on account of share capital under Section 68. In ITA No. 2848/KOL/2025, the assessee challenged the addition of ₹34,64,771/- made by the AO under Section 2(22)(e). The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) in the first appeal had mistakenly extracted facts relating to a different assessee concerning Section 2(22)(e) while confirming the addition under Section 68. In the second appeal, the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹30 lacs on account of share capital, made by the AO invoking Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A)? The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had erroneously confirmed the addition by referring to facts of a different case involving Section 2(22)(e), indicating a procedural lapse. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether the addition of ₹34,64,771/- made by the AO under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A) ex-parte? The assessee argued for an opportunity to be heard, as the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, DR
Hearing: 09.02.2026Pronounced: 17.02.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-21, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] even dated 10.09.2025 for the AY 2011-

12.

A.Y. 2011-12 2847/KOL/2025

2.

The issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Id. CIT (A)

confirming the addition of %30 lacs as made by the Id. AO on account of share capital received by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act.

amar Iron no. 2r zee

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →