URBAN INFRA NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1223/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 July 2026AY 2013-20145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by re-confirming the bad debt addition, as it was not part of the remand order and had been deleted in the first round. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 20,89,991/- on account of bad debt written off was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2013-14. Initially, the CIT(A) deleted additions for bad debt and Section 14A, but confirmed a cash deposit addition. The Tribunal remanded the cash deposit issue, but the CIT(A) in the second round deleted the cash deposit addition while re-confirming the bad debt addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by re-adjudicating an issue (bad debt) that was not part of the remand order and had been previously deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukha, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1223/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Urban Infra Nirman Private Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Limited Kolkata 7th Floor, PTI Building, Block-DP- 9, Salt Lake, Sector V, Kolkata, West Bengal-700091 [PAN: AAECA0756G] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.K. Pransukha, AR Respondent by : Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Madurai (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 17.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 17.07.2016 by making three additions namely, addition u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.37,74,420/-, addition on account of bad debt written off Rs.20,89,991/- and addition on

ITA No.1223/Kol/2026 Urban Infra Nirman Private Limited; A.Y: 2013-14 account of cash deposit of Rs.94,88,000/-. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 17.07.2016, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 11.06.2018, deleted the addition of Rs.37,74,420/- made u/s 14A of the Act and also deleted the addition made on account of bad debt written off Rs.20,89,991/-, however, confirmed the addition of Rs.94,88,000/- made on account on cash deposit.

3.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 11.06.2018, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1519/KOL/2018. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2019, restored the issue in the Appeal i.e., addition made on account of cash deposit to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue after admitting Assessee’s additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. In compliance with the direction of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2019, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated all the issues involved in the first Appeal including the additions already deleted in the first round by the Ld. CIT(A) i.e., addition u/s 14A of the Act and addition made on account of bad debt return along with addition made on account of cash deposits. However, in the second round, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the issue remanded by the Tribunal i.e., cash deposit of Rs.94,88,000/-,

ITA No.1223/Kol/2026 Urban Infra Nirman Private Limited; A.Y: 2013-14 however sustained the addition of Rs.20,89,991/- made on account of bad debt written off. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

4.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in sustaining the addition of Rs.20,89,991/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bad debt written off which has already been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the first round vide order dated 11.06.2018. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has travelled beyond jurisdiction and dealt with the issue which is not the part of the remand order made by the Tribunal and deciding the issue of bad debt written off which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the first round is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. CIT(A), thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

5.

Per Contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

6.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that during the first round before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of bad

ITA No.1223/Kol/2026 Urban Infra Nirman Private Limited; A.Y: 2013-14 debt written off Rs.20,89,991/- and the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the sole addition of cash deposit of Rs.94,88,000/- made on account of cash deposits, which has been called in questioned by the Assessee in ITA No.1519/KOL/2018. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2019, remand the said issue of cash deposits of Rs.94,88,000/- to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after considering the additional evidence produced by the Assessee. During the second round, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the sole issue of cash deposits made by the Assessee to its bank account of Rs.94,88,000/-. However, though the issue of bad debt written off was not part of the remand order passed by the Tribunal, the Ld. CIT(A) gone out of its purview and confirmed the said addition of Rs.20,89,991/- made on account of bad debt written off which is erroneous. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.20,89,991/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of bad debt written off.

7.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 28.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.07.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.1223/Kol/2026 Urban Infra Nirman Private Limited; A.Y: 2013-14 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →