M/S. KARUR SREE RAMA TRADING,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KARUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to furnish the required details. The appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income for AY 2011-12 was processed, and later selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made additions, and the CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance under Section 40A(3) ex-parte. The assessee appealed this enhancement.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) could enhance disallowance under Section 40A(3) ex-parte without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, dated 08.07.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. Besides challenging the enhancement of estimated addition of ₹.47.82 lakhs in the grounds of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has mainly disputed the ex-parte order of the ld. CIT(A) in enhancing the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 13.09.2011 admitting NIL income. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and questionnaire was also issued. After verification of records and considering the submissions of the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by adjusting the brought forward loss of ₹.1,23,65,025/- and making various addition to the extent of ₹.30.75 lakhs. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing various decisions of various courts, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has suo motu enhanced the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act without affording an opportunity of being heard before such enhancement of assessment and prayed for suitable directions. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the appellate order.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Since there was no proper representation from assessee’s side despite various opportunities afforded, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal after considering the materials available on record. On perusal of the records, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has shown yarn purchase of ₹.424.90 lakhs, Dye charges of ₹.206.44 lakhs, weaving charges of ₹.148.92 lakhs and processing charges of ₹.176.23 lakhs totalling to ₹.956.55 lakhs. Accordingly, the AR of the assessee was informed that owing to deficient Tax Audit Report and if the assessee was not to furnish the breakup of expenses made in cash, an appropriate percentage of expenses so made would be disallowed and added to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, who had mentioned that the net profit at ₹.30.83 lakhs was much lower than normal expected profits on aggregate of export and local yarn sales of approximately ₹.15 crores. However, the assessee has not turned up with breakup of expenses, etc. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act at ₹.47.82 lakhs. Taking into account of disallowance of ₹.20 lakhs already made by the Assessing Officer, the assessment was further enhanced by ₹.27.82 lakhs [₹.47.82 lakhs – ₹.20 lakhs]. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has suo motu enhanced the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act and prayed for affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing relevant details before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that in order to meet the ends of natural justice, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee for furnishing relevant details as required by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after considering relevant details as may be filed by the assessee by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 30th September, 2021 in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026