OMPRAKASH SHRIKISAN KASAT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3102/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 January 2026AY 2013-14Bench: Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the above said delay dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents without seeking adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual engaged in stone crushing, filed his return for AY 2013-14. During scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the AO made disallowances totaling Rs.10,44,137/- u/s 40(a)(ia) for NBFC interest and Rs.17,868/- u/s 14A. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without condoning the delay or hearing the merits, which led to the current appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without condoning delay, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication of disallowances under sections 40(a)(ia) and 14A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 14A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena
Hearing: 28.01.2026Pronounced: 29.01.2026

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without sufficient opportunity violating natural justice principles.

2. The disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.10,44,137/- on NBFC interest lacks merits, as Form 26AS was available but not considered; original AO erred without opportunity.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of stone crushing. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 01.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs.9,03,868/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made interest payment towards loan taken from NBFC amounting to Rs.10,14,266/-. Vide order dated 11.03.2016 the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the total income at Rs.19,65,871/-. The above assessed income includes disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act of Rs.10,44,137/- and disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.17,868/-.

5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the above said delay dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution.

6.

It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

7.

When the matter was called for hearing neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. DR.

8.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte since the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext,

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →