ALOK ARUN SHETH,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the assessee's submissions and erroneously presumed agreement for the disallowance. Therefore, the order of the AO was set aside for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously presumed the assessee had no objection to a disallowance under Section 14A, despite the assessee making proper submissions. The AO's assessment order was based on this erroneous presumption.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer properly considered the assessee's submissions before making a disallowance under Section 14A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre[NFAC], Delhi dated 09.06.2023 emanating from the assessment order dated 20.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Act.
At the outset, the ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that though assessee had made proper Alok Arun Sheth [A] submission during the assessment proceedings, but the Assessing Officer(AO) erroneously mentioned in Para 5 that assessee has not responded to the show-cause notice and hence, it is presumed that assessee has no objection regarding the proposed disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The ld.AR took us through the paper book to explain that assessee had made proper submission before the AO.
It is observed that AO had not considered the assessee’s submissions and presumed that assessee had agreed for the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, erroneously. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of the AO to the AO for denovo adjudication after giving opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026