KASVI DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was granted to give the assessee one more opportunity to explain the cash credits, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
What were the facts?
The assessee company received share capital of Rs. 1,43,00,000/-, but failed to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions to the Assessing Officer. The assessee also failed to respond to summons and notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case regarding unexplained cash credits.
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 A. T. Varkey, JM]
order
: February 08, 2019 ORDER
Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata dated 31.03.2017 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 trading and investment in shares. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 27.09.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,580/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was required by the A.O. to explain the cash credits representing share capital of Rs. 1,43,00,000/- received during the year under consideration by establishing the identity and capacity of the concerned shareholders as well as the genuineness of the relevant transactions by furnishing the necessary supporting documentary evidence. The assessee
2 Kasvi Development Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 company however failed to comply with the said requirement. The assessee also failed to respond to the summons issued by the A.O. u/s 131. The A.O., therefore, treated the share capital of Rs. 1,43,00,000/- received by the assessee company during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 19.03.2015.
Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no response 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 31.03.2017 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. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the notice of hearing finally fixed on 30.03.2017 issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on 23.03.2017 was received by the assessee only after the date of hearing, it is observed that the assessee has failed to explain the non- compliance to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeal for hearing initially on 22.03.2017. It is also observed that there was a similar non-compliance on the part of the assessee even during the course of assessment proceedings before the A.O. Keeping in view this casual and negligent approach of the assessee, we are of the view that 3 Kasvi Development Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 one more opportunity to explain the relevant cash credits representing share capital in terms of section 68 by producing the relevant supporting documentary evidence as sought by the learned counsel for the assessee can justifiably by given only subject to imposition of a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and restore the matter to the file of the A.O. for deciding the matter afresh after giving such opportunity to the assessee subject to a payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 8th February, 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. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026