ANKUR POWER PROJECT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15(1)(1), MUMBAI,, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated
12.11.2024, passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]
for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
1) That the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant to present its case, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Hence the appellate order passed be set aside.

2) For that th the disallowa
8D of the Inco not earned an 18, thereby m
Hence, the di be deleted.
3) For that t
14A(3) canno holding inves accrued or be the disallowa deleted.
4) For that th dated 22.09. F.No.225/157
issued u/s 1
assessment o is bad in law.
5) The appell terms of Tribunal) Rul
2. Briefly stated, return of income
Rs.69,030/-. The re selected for scrutiny
Act, 1961 (in short ‘t assessment complete u/s 14A of the Act in (in short ‘the Rul restricted the same
Ankur
ITA e Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in facts and law b ance of Rs.6,35,020 under Section 14A re ome Tax Rules, 1962, despite that, the ap ny exempt income during the Assessmen making the provisions of Section 14A isallowance of Rs.6,35,020 made u/s 14
the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate ot be invoked mechanically merely on stments, especially when no exempt een received during the relevant previous ance of Rs.6,35,020 made u/s 14A of e Id. AO erred in issuing notice u/s 143
.2019 without complying to the CBDT
7/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 and s
43(2) is not valid as per law and henc order and the assessment proceedings u lant craves leave to produce additional
Rule
29
of the Income
Tax les 1963."
facts of the case are that as on 20.09.2017 declaring to eturn of income filed by the y and statutory notices under the Act’) were issued and compl ed, the Assessing Officer mad nvoking Rule 8D of the Income- es’) amounting to Rs.21,24, to the extent of expenses of r Power Project Pvt. Ltd
2
A No. 4432/MUM/2025
by upholding ad with Rule appellant had nt Year 2017- inapplicable.
4A of the Act that Section the basis of income has year. Hence, f the Act be (2) of the Act
T Instruction so the notice ce the entire under the Act evidences in (Appellate ssessee filed its otal income at e assessee was the Income-tax lied with. In the de disallowance tax Rules, 1962
260/- however f Rs.6,35,020/- claimed in the profit
CIT(A) upheld the dis
“6.5 Despite not submitted
There is nothi of the ld asse
6.6 Hon’ble D
Commissione
02.09.2011 (I
“We fail to un was noted by another oppor conscious of t the impugned were two cou inference aga matter back t that the quan ground or ju assessee for inference sho concluded tha be safely con evidence, as question were opinion that t case like this adverse infere
6.7 Similarly,
28/02/2000
Srinivasan (Ap
“Every court decide a lis b dismiss a cas the party is n body is unde to pursue th instituted the for that matte the complain juri iction to Ankur
ITA t and loss account. On further sallowance observing as under:
being given multiple opportunities, the a d any documentary evidences in support ing on record to show any inaccuracies i ssing officer.
Delhi High Court in its decision in the r of Income taxvs Gold Leaf Capital Corpo
ITA No. 798 of 2009) had clearly held, nderstand that when such a conduct of y the Tribunal itself, where was the occ rtunity to the assessee. Interestingly, the this fact, which is clear from the reading d order. In this para, the Tribunal notic ursed open to it. First course was to dra ainst the assesseeand second course was to the AO. It chose second course only o ntum of amount involved was high, tha ustification for restoring and giving pre its negligence. In fact, it is a clear case w ould have been drawn. When the T at the assessee was non-cooperative, it ncluded that the assessee did not wan it would have exposed that the tra e not genuine and fraudulent. Therefore, there is a legal error committed by the Tri s, only one course of action is presumed, ence.”
, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its in the case of New India Assurance C ppeal (civil) 11439 of 1996) had clearly s or judicial body or authority, which h etween two parties, inherently possesses se in default. Where a case is called up fo not present, the court or the judicial or r no obligation to keep the matter pendin he matter on behalf of the complaina e proceedings. That is not the function of er, of judicial or quasi-judicial body. In t nant, therefore, the court will be we o dismiss the complaint for non- prosecutio r Power Project Pvt. Ltd
3
A No. 4432/MUM/2025
tated, has a duty to s the power to or hearing and quasi-judicial ng before it or ant who had f the court or, the absence of ell within its on”

Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Ankur
ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu r Power Project Pvt. Ltd
6
A No. 4432/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai