M/S PRIVILEGE POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not clear regarding the consideration of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged additions made by the AO under sections 43B and 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions without discussing the assessee's written submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's written submissions before confirming the additions made by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-11- 2018 passed by Ld CIT(A)-53, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) in respect of the following issues:- (a) Addition made u/s 43-B of the Act – Rs.6,853/- (b) Addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.73,24,616/- (c) Addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by reducing the amount of Work in Progress – Rs.43,19,585/-.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The authorised representative of the assessee M/s Nimesh Thar & Co., Chartered Accountants have moved an application seeking adjournment, wherein it is stated that the promoter Director Shri Sarang R Wadhawan is in judicial custody and hence they are not able to take any decision. We also observe from the record that the 2 M/s. Privilege Power & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
notices sent to the assessee by the registry on earlier occasions have been returned back unserved. Since neither the assessee nor its representaive is appearing before the bench in order to assist the bench, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The assessee is a real estate developer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of payments covered by the provisions of sec.43B and sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. On perusal of the same, the AO noticed that the assessee has not paid WCT covered by sec.43B before the due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.6,835/- u/s 43B of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source from certain payments. A portion of the payment amounting to Rs.73,24,616/- was claimed as deduction by debiting profit and loss account. The AO disallowed the same u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added the same to the total income. Another portion of the payment amounting to Rs.43,19,585/- was included in the Work in Progress. The AO reduced that amount from the value of WIP.
In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in respect of all the above said three items. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have gone through the order passed by Ld CIT(A). We notice that the assessee has furnished written submissions before him. We also notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not discussed about the submissions made by the assessee in respect of the above said additions, i.e., the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the additions observing that the assessee did not make any specific submissions. Hence, the order of the Ld CIT(A) is not clear as to the nature of written submissions made by the representative of the assessee
3 M/s. Privilege Power & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. before him. Further, it is not clear as to whether the said written submissions were, in fact, considered by Ld CIT(A) before taking the decision.
Under these set of facts, we are of the view that all the issues require fresh adjudication at the end of Ld CIT(A) by passing a reasoned order. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2022.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026