Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. In the first appeal (ITA 2847), the AO added ₹30 lacs under Section 68 for unexplained share capital, which the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed by citing Section 2(22)(e) and a different amount. In the second appeal (ITA 2848), an addition of ₹34,64,771/- was made under Section 2(22)(e), and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal noted procedural errors by the CIT(A) in both cases: using incorrect facts/sections in one appeal and passing an ex-parte order in the other without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, both matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the assessee a proper hearing.
Key Issues
The key issues were the incorrect confirmation of additions by the CIT(A) under Section 68 (unexplained share capital) and Section 2(22)(e) (deemed dividend), and the procedural lapses by the CIT(A) including using wrong facts and passing an ex-parte order.
Sections Cited
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
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
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 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.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 17.02.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata