IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No: 199/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

PO Box No. 11, Suvarn Bandekar, Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa-403802 PAN : AAACB5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, National e-Asstt. Centre, New Delhi . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by: Mr Pramod Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]

Revenue by: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Date of conclusive Hearing: 24/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2025

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI;

This appeal of the assessee is instituted u/s 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] which challenges DIN & Order No 1065635819(1) dt. 13/06/2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act which in turn originated from order of assessment dt. 08/03/2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year

2018-19 [‘AY’].

2. The primary grievance in present appeal twirls around dismissal of first appeal without adjudicating two of three issues raised in Form No 35 thus in contravention of s/s (6) of 250 of the Act.

3. As we note that, the assessee is an incorporated company engaged in the business of mining & exports of iron ore. For the year under consideration the assessee company filed its return of income on 25/09/2018 declaring total income of ₹1,94,08,356/. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) r.w.s. 143(3B) of the Act wherein a solitary disallowance of ₹1,93,93,491/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘the rules’] was made and total income was assessed higher of income under normal provisions and deemed income u/s 115JB of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by assessment the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 05/04/2021, which came to be dismissed thus brining no relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the impugned order the assessee came in present appeal on three grounds correspondingly agitating three issues viz; (i) validity of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act (ii) validity of 14A disallowance added while computing deemed income u/s 115JB and (iii) without prejudice to former issues, validity of disallowance computed without reducing average investment which did not yield exempt income.

5. Without touching merits, we have heard rival party’s submissions on limited issue of non- adjudication of grounds/issues and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law.

6. From the rival party’s submission in first place & the perusal of impugned order it prima-facie revealed us that, in the return of income the appellant claimed to have incurred no expenditure in earning exempt income. Neither the appellant’s explanation nor it’s submission inspired to the Ld. AO, who in turn invoked the provisions and computed ₹1,93,93,491/- amount to be disallowed u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2) of the rules. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO added aforestated disallowances to assess the total income of the appellant for the year under consideration, and framed the assessment accordingly. Aggrieved appellant filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC with as many as sixteen grounds which alleged three such precisely were; (i) disallowance u/s 14A was unwarranted (ii) such disallowance cannot be added to deemed income and (iii) disallowance computed without reducing non-exempt income investments.

7. We note that, while dealing with the appellant’s appeal, the Ld. NFAC vide para 5.5 dealt with the first issue of validity of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D (Supra), however shortly culminated said issue with much less conclusive decision thereon but reproducing ratio from catena of judicial precedents. Whereas vide para 5.6 to 5.7 Ld. NFAC dealt with second issue as to whether or not disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r