KANAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY PRIVATE LTD,MUNNAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), COCHIN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to follow the procedure under Section 250(6) of the Act by not framing points of determination and providing a detailed discussion. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 14A without properly addressing the factual matrix.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by failing to frame points of determination and discuss the facts. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was 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 Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Appellant by: Shri Sumeet M., CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 14.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059707071(1) dated 15.01.2024 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)/NFAC has passed exparte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 14A disallowance or Rs.1,01,39,000/- without dealing with the Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Co. P. Ltd. relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit appropriate to restore this assessee’s appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh verification and adjudication with a rider that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2024.
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 →- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026