KIRLOSKAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 140/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 January 2017AY 2006-073 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had properly adjudicated the issues in light of the relevant provisions of law. No infirmity was found in the CIT(Appeals) order.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, Kirloskar Systems Ltd., appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order. The appeals were listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite proper service of notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the invocation of Section 148 was warranted and whether the disallowance under Section 14A was correctly re-computed by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI A.K. GARODIA

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)-3
Hearing: 05.12.2016Pronounced: 06.01.2017

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

These appeals were listed for hearing on 05.12.2016, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

2.

On careful perusal of the record, we find that notice of hearing was served upon the assessee through Registered AD and AD card is placed on record. Since despite service of various notices of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, we have no option but to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee. Accordingly revenue was heard.

3.

In these appeals, the assessee has assailed the order of CIT(Appeals) on common grounds and for the sake of reference, we extract the grounds raised in as follows:-

1.

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the contents of the company that invoking provisions of section 148 of the Act was not warranted. Consequently the assessment was bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in re-computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act while computing the total Income.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that some of the expenses considered for calculating further disallowances under section 14A were already considered by the assessee.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenses considered by the assessing officer does not directly relate to earning any exempt income. Your appellant seeks leave to add to, to amend any of the foregoing grounds as and when considered necessary/at the time of hearing.”

4.

We have carefully examined the order of CIT(Appeals) in the light of revenue's contentions and we find that the CIT(Appeals) has properly adjudicated the issues in the light of relevant provisions of law and since we do not find any infirmity therein, we confirm his order.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed Pronounced in the open court on this 06th day of January, 2017.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →