CLORET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the necessary documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for failure to furnish necessary documents. The assessee claimed that the addition under Section 68 was incorrect as money was not received in the impugned year, only share allotment.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and whether Section 68 is applicable when only share allotment, not receipt of money, occurred in the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 07.02.2024 for the AY 2012-13.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a second round of appeal before the Tribunal. In the first round of appeal, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO to decide the issues afresh. However, by relying on the agreement dated 23.03.2012, between M/s Cloret Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Pushpak Commercial Pvt. Ltd, which was for purchase of shares of the group
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) passed the ex-parte order dismissing the appeal in limine, when the assessee failed to furnish the necessary documents.
The ld. AR prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for denovo adjudication of the issue after a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex- parte order confirming the assessment framed by the ld. AO, thereby upholding the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee claimed that when the money was not received during the year and it was only allotment of shares which was effected during the impugned assessment year. Therefore, section 68 of the Act is not applicable. In our opinion, the issue is required to be examined at the level of ld. CIT (A) before whom the proceedings attained finality, ex-parte. Consequently, we restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT (A) with a direction for denovo adjudication after offering reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to co-operate in the proceedings by fling the necessary documents as called for by the ld. CIT (A).The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee has challenged the appellate order passed by ld. CIT (A) on legal issue as well as on merit.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.12.2024.
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 Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026