M/S. HOWRAH FORGINGS LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 61/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the assessee's own case and restored the issues to the file of the Ld. JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, directing them to pass a speaking order. The Tribunal also invoked powers under section 254(1) to stay the demand.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an original return of income and later a revised return. The CPC processed the return under section 143(1) determining a total income of Rs. 80,34,590/- u/s 41 of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 2,94,957/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the CPC u/s 41 of the Act was correct. Whether the assessee failed to provide proof of deduction and if only ledger copies were submitted. Whether a speaking order was passed by the Ld. JCIT(A)-1.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41,Section 139(5),Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Mundhra, Shri Sharad Joshi, AR
Hearing: 20.05.2025Pronounced: 20.05.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Deepak Mundhra Shri Sharad Joshi, AR Respondent by : Roma Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071171365(1)(1) dated 11.12.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2023-24.

2.

Shri Deepak Mundhra and Sharad Joshi, AR are represented on behalf of the assessee and Roma Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

On perusal of the order of the Ld. JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, it is seen that his findings are at pages 10-11 of his order. The said findings read as follows:

Decision The original return of income filed on 19.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 8,00,46,630/- and latter on revised u/s 139(5) filed on 04.12.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 8,03,41,590/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 22.12.2023 determining total income of Rs. 80,34,590/- u/s 41 of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by the CPC the assessee made an appeal to M/s. National Faceless Assessment Center. Addition made u/s.41 of the Act by the CPC of Rs.2,94,957/- is correct. Deduction made by the assessee is existence business in that year or not. Assessee has also failed to filed proof of deduction in that year. Assessee had produced only ledger copy & claimed deduction & exemption is not correct. So, the CPC has correctly made disallowance. On this ground appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

4.

We would like to refer to the decision in the assessee’s own case in for the assessment year 2016-17, where also a non-speaking order has been passed by the Ld. JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai. Accordingly, and on the basis of reasoning given in the assessee’s appeal in ITA 60/Kol/2025 the issues in this appeal are also restored to the file of Ld. JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, who is directed to pass a speaking order and also take note of the observations of this Bench in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 60/Kol/2025.

5.

Also, this Tribunal is suo-moto invoking powers of section 254(1) of the Act and staying the demand in the said appeal till disposal of this appeal by the Ld. JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai by passing a speaking order.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 41

All 156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →