ALOK ARUN SHETH,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 790/PUN/2023Status: HeardITAT Pune03 August 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 14A

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

For Appellant: Shri Prathamesh Borkar – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR
Hearing: 03/08/2023Pronounced: 03/08/2023

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →