INTERLAND SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 732/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 December 20182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the issue and had not confirmed proper service of notice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's action of treating share capital/premium as bogus and unexplained. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention whether the assessee was properly served notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits and ensured proper service of notice to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 06.10.2016 passed in case No.1406/CIT(A)-1/Wd-2(1)/2015-16 in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. The registry has already sent the assessee an RPAD notice dated 30.10.2018 for today’s hearing. We therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee. The case is now taken up for adjudication.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →