ZAHI TYRES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-reasoned order, dismissing the appeal without considering the facts and judicial precedents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Zahi Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a return declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 14A and Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, increasing the total income. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) passed a reasoned order. Whether the additions made by the AO under Section 14A and Section 40A(3) were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 17.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of tyres on contract basis. Assessee filed return of income for AY 2013-14 on 07.032014 declaring a loss of Rs. 62,59,909/- . Against the said return of income assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.29,69,327/-. While doing so the AO made addition of Rs.3,30,181/- invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 48,21,000/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.
Zahi Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) raising several grounds. The CIT(A) vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it would be clear that the CIT(A) without adverting to the facts of the case and the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, had merely dismissed the appeal without giving any cogent reasoning. Thus the order passed by the CIT(A) is not a reasoned order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice, would be met if the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026