Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against CIT(A) orders confirming additions made by the AO regarding share capital received (u/s 68) and deemed dividends (u/s 2(22)(e)). In one case, the CIT(A) allegedly relied on facts from a different matter, and in the other, an ex-parte order was passed.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order in the first appeal contained factual errors concerning the case. In the second appeal, an ex-parte order was passed due to the assessee's non-compliance. In both instances, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO were correct and the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeals, especially concerning factual inaccuracies and ex-parte orders.
Sections Cited
68, 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
A.Y. 2011-12 2847/KOL/2025 2. The issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹30 lacs as made by the ld. AO on account of share capital received by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act.
A.Y. 2011-12 2848/KOL/2025 4. The issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the ld. AO wherein the addition of ₹34,64,771/- , was made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the appellate order has been passed by the ld. CIT (A) ex-parte when the assessee failed to respond the various opportunities allowed by the ld. CIT (A) resulting into passing an ex- parte order. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice will be well served if the assessee is given one more
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026.