M/S. R. PIYARELALL IRON & STEEL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte without proper adjudication and without affording effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte without adjudicating the merits of the disallowance of service tax expenditure and disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee claimed they did not receive notices for earlier hearings.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without proper adjudication and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the disallowances were correctly made on merits.
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: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godara
PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:
- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 23.05.2017, passed in case No.858/CIT(A)-1/Circle-3(1)/2015-16,upholding Assessing Officer’s action disallowing / adding an amount of ₹13,05,901/- relevant to the expenditure related to service tax for financial year 2009-10 as well as u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of ₹1,19,540/- made in assessment order dated 28.03.2015, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s order under challenge has been passed ex parte against the assessee without adjudicating merits of the two issues
ITA No.1744/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s R. Piyarelalliron & Steel (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1) Kol. Page 2 hereinabove in light of section 250(6) of the Act. The lower appellate order has neither framed points of determination nor has it made any detailed adjudication qua the assessee’s twin grievance. We sought to know the reason of assessee’s non- appearance during the course CIT(A)’s hearings fixed for 26.08.2016, 19.09.2016 and 12.05.2017. Learned counsel informs us that assessee had never received the said former two notice(s) of hearing. Coming to the last opportunity in May, 2017 he pleads that the said notice came much after the schedule dated in question. All these averments have gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. More particularly the fact that assessee had not been actually served earlier two notices of hearings in the course of lower appellate proceedings. We therefore restore the instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits after affording three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 29/08/2018 (लेखा सद!य) (#या$यक सद!य) (P.M.Jagtap) (S.S.Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member *Dkp-Sr.PS %दनांकः- 29/08/2018 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-M/sR. Piyarelalliron & Steel (P) Ltd.12, Govt. Place(E) Kol-69
""यथ"/Respondent-DCIT, Cir-3(1),Aayakar Bhawan,P-7,Chowringhee Sq. Kol-69 3. संबं(धत आयकर आयु+त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु+त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. ,वभागीय "$त$न(ध, आयकर अपील"य अ(धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड0 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ(धकरण, कोलकाता
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 Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026