SPR AUTO INTERIOR SOLUTIONS CHAKAN PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, it was proper to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and then decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee was also directed to make its submissions on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The addition of Rs. 3,97,37,465/- was not decided on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, SPR Auto Interior Solutions Chakan Private Limited, a domestic company engaged in manufacturing plastic auto components, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2023-24 declaring a total loss. The Assessing Officer (AO), under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, completed the assessment determining a reduced total loss by making an addition of Rs. 3,97,37,465/- on account of undisclosed business income. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appellate Authority (NFAC), which dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed an ex-parte order without granting an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as per the contentions of the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed an ex-parte order, violating principles of natural justice. It was submitted that only one notice was issued, and after filing an adjournment application, no further notice was received, preventing the assessee from making submissions. The assessee requested an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing requisite details. The assessee referred to specific pages in the paper book regarding the notice, adjournment application, and e-proceedings screenshot. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
PER R.K. PANDA, VP:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2026 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2023-24. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.3,97,37,465/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed business income.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic auto components. It filed its return of income on 29.11.2023 declaring total loss of at Rs.21,12,91,284/-. The 2 Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) determining the total loss of the assessee at Rs.17,15,53,819/- wherein he made addition of Rs.3,97,37,465/- on account of undisclosed business income by observing as under:
In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC passed the ex-parte order without granting appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 575 of the paper book, drew the 3 attention of the Bench to the notice issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 27.05.202 asking the assessee to file certain details. Referring to page 579 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the adjournment application filed by the assessee on 11.06.2025. Referring to page 583 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the screenshot of the e-proceedings according to which the response filed on 11.06.2025 was viewed by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 28.10.2025. He submitted that after the first notice was issued, no further notice was issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for which the assessee could not make any submission. Finally, he submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details.
The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case in the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determined the total loss at Rs.17,15,53,819/- as against the returned loss of Rs.21,12,91,284/- by making addition of Rs.3,97,37,465/- on account of undisclosed business income. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, in absence of any explanation before him to substantiate the case of the assessee, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that only one notice was issued by 4 the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in response to which the assessee sought adjournment and no further notice was issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for which the assessee could not make any submission. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th October, 2026. (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 14th October, 2026 GCVSR
5 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent
The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune
DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar //// More Date: 2026.10.24 13:00:10 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026