Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2011-12. In one appeal, an addition of ₹30 lacs was made under Section 68 for share capital treated as unexplained credit. In the other, an addition of ₹34,64,771/- was made under Section 2(22)(e).
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made errors in both cases, including misquoting facts of a different case and passing an ex-parte order. Consequently, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Procedural errors by the CIT(A) in confirming additions under Section 68 and Section 2(22)(e), necessitating a fresh adjudication.
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.
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: