MAGEBA BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1771/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata 'C' Bench against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay, which the Tribunal condoned after being satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay, having come to know of the CIT(A)'s order only upon receipt of a penalty order. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made several additions to the assessee's income, including site expenses, differences in import figures, and undisclosed income from services. The CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding Ground 2 (site expenses), the Tribunal found the 50% disallowance to be unreasonable. While acknowledging that in the absence of complete bills and vouchers, expenditure remains unverified, the Tribunal proposed a disallowance of 10% of the expenditure claimed, to which both the assessee and revenue had no objection. The disallowance was restricted to 10%, reversing the CIT(A)'s finding, and this ground was partly allowed. Regarding Ground 3 (import figures), the assessee did not press this ground as they were unable to reconcile the discrepancy, and it was dismissed as 'not pressed'. Regarding Ground 4 (undisclosed income from services), the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately reconciled the difference, which arose from works contract being included in service tax returns while shown as sales in the return of income. The addition was deleted, and this ground was allowed. Regarding Ground 5 (interest u/s 115P), the Tribunal noted that DDT was paid on time and there was no mention of interest in the assessment order. The interest was inadvertently included and confirmed cryptically by the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed its deletion, and this ground was allowed. Regarding Grounds 1 and 7 (general grounds), they were considered general and did not require separate adjudication. Regarding Ground 6 (interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C), this was not explicitly decided but would be consequential to the relief granted on other grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing, thereby denying natural justice, and whether the assessee received a copy of the order (Section 250). 2. Whether the Ld. AO erred in disallowing and adding back Rs. 10,04,555/- on account of site expenses on an estimated basis of 50% of expenses. 3. Whether the Ld. AO erred in disallowing Rs. 31,93,754/- on account of the difference in import figures shown in the books of accounts and CBEC Import data. 4. Whether the Ld. AO erred in disallowing Rs. 1,49,38,664/- on account of undisclosed income received from services. 5. Whether the Ld. AO erred in charging interest of Rs. 27,09,235/- under Section 115P of the Act, despite the assessee having paid the dividend distribution tax and no mention of such interest in the assessment order. 6. Whether the Ld. AO erred in computing interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, requiring recomputation and relief. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that documents were filed before both the AO and CIT(A) but were not considered. For Ground 1, the assessee contended that only a notice for 'Enablement of Communication Window' was issued, not a proper hearing notice, and the order was not received. For Ground 2, sample bills and vouchers were produced. For Ground 4, the difference arose from works contract treated as service in service tax returns versus sales in financial details, and this was adequately reconciled. For Ground 5, DDT was paid on time, and no interest under Section 115P was discussed in the assessment order. For Ground 6, interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C needs recomputation. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested it be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 40A(3A),Section 115P,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] for AY 2017-18 dated 30.05.2024. ITA No(s). 1771/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 Mageba Bridge Products Private Li

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 40A(3A)

All 48 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →