MALCO ENERGY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. Considering the gravity of the issues and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without the assessee's appearance. The assessee had raised grounds related to set off of losses, additional depreciation, and loss on slump sale.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and whether the grounds raised by the assessee regarding set off of losses, additional depreciation, and slump sale loss require fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-17/IT-343/11028/16-17 dated 27/12/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 31/12/2016 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. Set off of Losses/Unabsorbed Depreciation 1.1 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in not concluding the ground re set off of losses/unabsorbed depreciation and erred in not dismissing the action of the Ld AO of not allowing set off of brought forward business losses of Rs. 16,80,23,720 pertaining to AY 2009-10 and Rs. 53,78,75,335 pertaining to AY 2011-12 even though the same was available and was claimed by the Appellant Company in its return of income. 1.2 For that on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the the learned Assessing Officer has erred in setting off the profits for the year against unabsorbed depreciation when the assessee has brought forward business losses for earlier years. 1.3 For that on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in merely stating that the set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation has been disallowed as per the provisions of the Act and not explaining the same basis of any provisions of the Act and erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has failed to give effect to the provisions of section 72 subsection^) which clearly specifies the order of set off among unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business loss.
2. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation For that on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 38,90,015 for claim of additional depreciation at the rate of 10% for assets acquired in second half of AY 2013-14 even though the same was claimed in the return of income for the AY 2014-15 as per section 32(l)(iia) of the Act while computing total income under Normal Provisions of the Act and as such the same needs to be deleted.
Disallowing Loss Pursuant to Slump Sale For that on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 32,92,00,000 being loss pursuant to Slump sale of power business debited to the P&L account in spite of the fact that the same was suo moto disallowed by the appellant company in its return of income and hence such disallowance amounts to double disallowance and hence needs to be deleted.
4. The above grounds are without prejudice and independent to each other.
For that the appellant Company craves indulgence to add, to amend, alter, modify, add to or forego any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal.”
3. At the outset, we find that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an exparte order without personal appearance from the side of the assessee. Though the assessee has been given sufficient opportunities before the ld. CIT(A), still as a last and final opportunity, we deem it fit in the natural of justice and fair play, considering the gravity of the issues involved, to remand this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed not to seek any adjournment except due to unavoidable circumstances and co-operate with the ld. CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 08/03/2021 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.
More judgments on Section 32
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, ValsadITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1)…ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 9186/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 9185/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026