PRITY TUBES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without proper service of notice or considering the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 concerned disallowances of purchase claims and expenses under Section 14A. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order affirming the Assessing Officer's disallowances.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing and without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA
Before: SH. S.S.GODARA & DR.A.L.SAINI
ORDER
PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 arises against the order dated 15.03.2017 passed by Learned CIT(A)-5, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) confirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing its purchase claim of Rs.5,21,19,856/- to be bogus followed by section 14A r.w.Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.71,416/- made in the course of assessment framed on 30.03.2015, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act.
Heard both the parties and reiterating their respective stands in support of the impugned twin disallowances/additions. Case filed perused.
It emerges at the outset from the instant case filed that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex-parte against the assessee while affirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing assessee’s purchase of Rs.5,21,19,856/- as bogus as well as invoking section 14A r.w.Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.71,416/- respectively. Learned DR vehemently submitted during the course of hearing that the assessee did not put in appearance in the last three dates of hearing i.e. 04.10.2016, 16.02.2017 and 14.03.2017. We find no merit in the instant arguments as there is not even a single observation about the actual service of Year: 2012-13] corresponding hearing notice in Learned CIT(A)’s order. Coupled with this, it is evident that Learned CIT(A) has nowhere discussed the relevant evidence available in the case filed running into almost 300 pages in support of genuineness of the impugned purchases as stipulated u/s 250(6) of the Act. We therefore restore the instant appeal back to Learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing being heard to the assessee.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.10.2018.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026