M/S. IPM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee claimed the notices were never received. The Assessing Officer had made several additions, including share application money and agricultural income treated as unexplained cash credits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notice. Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (D
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President, KZ This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 18, Kolkata dated 23.08.2018 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pin. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 2,16,83,544/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act vide an order dated 26.12.2016,the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO of Rs. 98,55,873 after making the following additions: “1. Share application money treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, Rs. 2,66,09,482/-
2 M/s. IPM Industries Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15
2. Agricultural income treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, Rs. 37,95,000/- 3. Disallowance u/s 43B, Rs. 7,26,976/- 4. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va), Rs. 4,07,055/-“
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 144/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 23.08.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) on two occasions and since the notices of the hearings so fixed was never received by the assessee, the assessee could not comply with the same. Keeping in view this submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) when its appeal was fixed for hearing. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex- parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the learned
3 M/s. IPM Industries Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the Assessing Officer and shall extend all the cooperation in order to enable the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10th April, 2019.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026