M/S. NGK SPARK PLUGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case, even in the absence of the assessee's representation. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in trading and manufacturing of spark plugs, filed a return showing a loss. The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 5,72,79,605/- to the income due to international transactions, which the AO made as an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's absence.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex parte without considering the merits of the case, solely based on the assessee's absence during hearings. The need for the CIT(A) to adjudicate on the grounds of appeal even without assessee representation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI O.P.KANT & SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY
NGK Spark Plugs P. Ltd., vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 212, 2nd Floor, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon. JMD Pacific Square, 32nd Mile Stone, NH-8, Gurgaon. PAN AACCN3410E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Divyanshu Agarwal, Advocate Shri Akash Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.DR. Date of hearing: 04/07/2019 Date of order : 09/07/2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M.
Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon (“Ld. CIT(A)”), the assessee, namely M/s NGK Spark Plugs Private Limited filed this appeal in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in trading and manufacturing of Spark Plugs and Auto Sensors. For the Asstt. Year 2010-11, they have filed a return at a loss of Rs.4,59,63,063/- (deemed total loss u/s 115JB Rs.3,58,41,221/-) on 25.9.2010. Ld. AO found that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises and, therefore, made a reference to the TPO to determine the Arm’s length price. Learned TPO, after considering the contentions of the assessee and perusing the record proposed an adjustment of Rs.5,72,79,605/- to the income of the assessee vide order dated 20.1.2014. Basing on that, learned AO made an addition of Rs.5,72,79,605/- and assessed the income at Rs.1,13,16,542/-.
Challenging the addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) recorded that the case was fixed for hearing on 27.8.2015 and at the request on behalf of the assessee, it was adjourned to 21.9.2015, 15.10.2015,20.10.2015 and finally to 14.12.2015, on which date none appeared. Therefore, looking at the absence of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) inferred that the assessee had no interest to pursue the matter or get the matter disposed of. By cursorily observing that the ld. TPO gave cogent reasons and detailed justification for the proposed adjustment and in the absence of any explanation from the assessee, there are no reasons to interfere.
Ld. AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal in limine, without referring to the merits of the case and the so called reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) that the reasoning of the ld. TPO was detailed and justified is only a conclusion but not the process. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is willing to cooperate with the disposal of the matter on merits since on the earlier occasions before the ld. CIT(A), there was no representation on behalf of the assessee was not known to the assessee and, therefore, he will take all the diligent steps to make representation before the ld. CIT(A).
Ld. DR submitted that this is not a matter to be allowed and the orders of the authorities below are well reasoned and justified.
We have gone through the record and the impugned order. Neither the grounds of appeal are adverted to by the ld. CIT(A) nor such grounds were discussed in the order. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had taken several grounds. Merely because there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) is not prevented from discussing the case on merits and to reach a right conclusion. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal afresh after giving opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say that it shall be the last opportunity for the assessee and should there be any default on its part to make representation, ld. CIT(A) is free to pass an ex parte order but on merits.
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
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