M/S OBEROI IBC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 986/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, to ensure proper adjudication, decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision. This remand is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 11,000/- with the revenue department within 15 days.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order which confirmed additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to appear for hearings despite multiple notices and did not make submissions, leading to an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A). The additions were for disallowance under Section 14A(ia) and interest expenses under Section 37(1).

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner was justified in sustaining additions ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance, and whether the case warrants a remand for a fresh decision to ensure proper adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 14A(ia),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. D.R
Hearing: 07.05.2025Pronounced: 30.05.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.12.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

In this case, the notices sent to the assessee for the dates of hearing on 24.03.2025 as well as on 07.05.2025 though RPAD, appears to be delivered as per acknowledgement available on record, however, still the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment and therefore, in the constrained circumstances, we are inclined to decide this appeal as ex-parte.

3.

From para no. 6 of the impugned order, it appears that eight notices in total, were sent to the Assessee, however, still the Assessee except partially making submission in response to notice dated 25.01.2025, eventually made no response/compliance and therefore the ld. Commissioner vide impugned order affirmed the additions Rs. 1,24,49,802/- and Rs. 1,30,587/- respectively made by AO, on account of disallowance u/s. 14A(ia) of the Act and interest expenses on delayed payment u/s. 37(1) of the Act.

4.

Admittedly, in the absence of relevant reply and documents, the ld. Commissioner sustained the additions on the basis of determination made by the Assessing officer only. If we consider the conduct of the Assessee, then the Assessee do not deserve any leniency. However, considering the facts in totality, as the issues remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, hence, for just and proper decision of the case and to afford a last and final opportunity to the Assessee, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, but subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the revenue department under ‘other heads’ within 15 days from the receipt of this order. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05.2025.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →