BROWNQURTZ AGENCY PRIVATE LIMTED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ELFIN SECURITIES PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the serious illness of the assessee's counsel's father. 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. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 46.87 crores on account of share capital and premium treated as unexplained cash credit.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was valid.
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, AM & Shri S.S. Godara, JM]
order
: September 18, 2018 ORDER
Per P.M. Jagtap, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 23, Kolkata dated 17.02.2017 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.
The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 745/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 16.03.2015, total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 46,87,44,255/- after making an addition of Rs. 46.87 crores on account of share capital and share premium claimed to be received by the assessee by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brownqurtz Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 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 17.02.2017 passed ex-parte and confirmed the addition made by the AO u/s 68. Aggrieved by the order of 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) ex-parte without providing proper and sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri R.K. Chowdhury, Advocate has submitted that his father was seriously ill during the relevant period when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). He has contended that due to serious illness of his father, he could not represent the assessee’s case before the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte. 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 on the part of the assessee when his appeal was fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). 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 after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brownqurtz Agency Pvt. Ltd. make due compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and extend all possible cooperation in order to enable him to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18th September, 2018.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026