TRIDENT COATINGS PVT.LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1),, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal condoned the delay after considering the assessee's explanation. The tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed non-speaking orders without proper discussion on merits and that the disallowances were made on items not prohibited by Section 40 of the Act. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the orders and directed the AO to adjudicate the matter de novo.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 2315 days, attributing the delay to Covid-19 and misrepresentation by the erstwhile Chartered Accountant. The assessee also contested an addition of Rs. 51,12,839/- made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned and whether the disallowances made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : S/Shri S.Sridhar & G.Tarun Advocates. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the 17 dated 29.06.2018 of the Leaned Commissioner of Income Tax, (herein after “CIT(A), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15.
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 2315 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse has committed the delay on account of multiple external factors beyond its control. Thus, it was argued that part of the delay was attributed to Covid-19 and another major part on account of misrepresentation by erstwhile Chartered Accountant, Smt.S.Vidya. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non- compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR submitted that in the event of condonation of delay, cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the court. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.
3.0 The only issue contested by the appellant assessee through its grounds of appeal is regarding an addition of Rs.51,12,839/- made by the Ld.AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that out of the above disallowance amounts concerning director’s remuneration and salary do not call for any disallowance within the meanings of section 40(a)(ia) per se. The disallowance for salary was reported to have been brought upon statute w.e.f AY-2015-16 and hence not applicable to this year. As regards rent It was stated that since the payee had paid the tax on his rental income the disallowance was unwarranted. It was also submitted that the Ld.AO Page - 2 - of 4 and Ld.CIT(A) have passed non-speaking orders without any application of mind. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to Ld.AO for verifying the nature of payments and to allow those which are eligible.
4.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have observed from the order of both the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) that both the authorities have passed totally cryptic , one liner orders without any discussion on the merits. We have also noted that disallowances have been made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act upon items which are not prohibited u/s 40 of the Act. We are therefore convinced that the matter deserves reconsideration by the Ld.AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the Ld.AO to adjudicate the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be required to be comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO. Any non- compliance shall be adversely viewed. This adjudication is however subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand only ) to be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund within one month from the date of this order. A copy thereof shall be submitted in the office of Page - 3 - of 4 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th , May -2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 30th , May -2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF
Page - 4 - of 4
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026