SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI YADAV,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A) as the second notice was not received. Therefore, the ex parte order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against an ex parte order by the CIT(A) was heard. The CIT(A) had upheld an addition on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A(SMC
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]
ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-14, Kolkata dated 15.06.2018 for AY 2014-15.
The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding by an ex parte order the addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which, according to Ld. AR, was in violation of the principles of natural justice in having passed the ex parte order qua the assessee without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, he urged before the bench to set aside the ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. Ld. DR has opposed this prayer of the assessee.
We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) passed a cryptic and ex parte order after issuing two notices fixing the date of hearing on 04.05.2018 and 21.05.2018. The Ld. AR before us
Smt. Nirmala Kumari Yadav, AY:2014-15 submitted that the second notice dated 21.05.2018 was not received by the assessee. In view of the above, we note that there is reasonable cause for the assessee not to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance to law.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 16 January, 2018. Sd/- (Aby. T. Varkey) Judicial Member Dated : 16 January, 2019 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
Appellant – Smt. Nirmala Kumari Yadav, 27, Sanatan Mistry Lane, Salkia, PS Golabari, Howrah-711106. Respondent – ITO, Ward-48(4), Kolkata. 2 3. CIT(A)-14, Kolkata(sent through e-mail)
4. CIT, Kolkata.
DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)
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 Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
