CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 854/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's order under Section 154 was passed without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to object, as the consequential order was not served. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a banking company, had additions made by the AO under Section 37 and Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the addition under Section 37 but confirmed the addition under Section 14A. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under Section 154 proposing further disallowances, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the AO's order under Section 154 was valid when the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present objections due to non-service of the consequential order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 14A,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM

For Appellant: Shri Sathish Modi, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.03.2025Pronounced: 14.05.2025

O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 12.10.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a banking company. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on 24.09.2009 disclosing total income of Rs. 73,18,82,460/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the DCIT, Circle – 1(1), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.12. 20111 u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of CSB Bank Ltd. Rs. 73,29,78,611/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 4,92,212/- by disallowing the payment of pension u/s. 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and also made a disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 6,03,939/-

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 19.02.2014 in appeal No. 16/RI/TCR/CIT(A)- V/2011-12 had partly allowed the appeal. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of pension of Rs. 4,92,212/-. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition u/s. 14A of the Act. The AO passed consequential order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) on 11.06.2014 and the AO had issued a notice u/s. 154 of the Act proposing to make the following disallowances:-

i) Disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 20,87,731/- ii) Capital expenditure disallowance u/s. 37 of Rs. 2,70,787/- 4. In response to the show cause notice it is submitted that since the consequential order dated 11.06.2014 was not served on the appellant, it was unable to offer any explanation to the show cause notice. However, the AO has proceeded with passing of the order u/s. 154 after making disallowances proposed in the show cause notice vide order dated 24.03.2016.

5.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

6.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

CSB Bank Ltd. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act is illegal, inasmuch as, there are no mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the AO giving effect to the order of the CIT(A). There is no mistake apparent from record which are capable of being rectified u/s. 154 of the Act.

8.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that, when the appellant was issued a show cause notice u/s. 154 of the Act, the appellant had no reasonable opportunity to file objections against the proposed action u/s. 154, as the consequential order was not served on the appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the AO for fresh disposal of the matter in accordance with law decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. We make it clear that all the contentions raised by the appellant before us are kept opened before the AO.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →