IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gujarat State Petronet Deputy Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Wing “A”, Plot No.E-18, Gandhinagar Circle, GSPL Bhavan, Block No.14, GIDC Electronics Estate, Room No.405, Vs.

Nr. K-7, Circle, Sector – 26, 4^th Floor, Udhyog Bhavan, Gandhinagar – 382 028. Sector – 11, (Gujarat) Gandhinagar – 382 028.

[PAN – AABCG 1812 E] (Gujarat)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue by Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.10.2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 03.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 23.09.2016 declaring income of Rs.566,18,41,840/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee is a Government company engaged in the business of laying and operating of cross-country pipelines for transportation of natural gas. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had earned tax free income, in respect of which disallowance of Rs.20,72,918/- was made by the assessee under Section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer had examined the disallowance as made by the assessee and found that the working of the disallowance was not correct. The Assessing Officer, therefore, re-worked the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act at Rs.12,39,84,226/- and accordingly made the addition. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 09.12.2018 at total income of Rs.578,58,26,070/-.

3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: -

“Non-speaking order u/s.250 without considering written submission -

Bad in Law

1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts by not considering &

disposing off various grounds taken by the Appellant in appeal and instead issued show cause notice with the sole objective of confirming the order of the AO & later passed under u/s.250 of the Act without considering the submissions of the Appellant.

1.1 The learned CIT(A) has also erred in law by not following principles of natural justice & by not giving opportunity of being heard through video conferencing as sought by appellant, in case adverse view is drawn against appellant.

2. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) u/s. 250 is bad in law as it is a non-speaking order passed without considering or providing any reasons for non-acceptance of various arguments taken in the written submission filed by the Appellant before CIT(A) & hence required to be quashed.

Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs.12,19,11,308/- without recording dissatisfaction on suo-moto disallowance [Tax Effect - Rs 4,21,91,065]

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12.39,84,226/- u/s.14A on incorrect facts & not restricting the same to Rs.20,72,918/- being the suo-moto disallowance offered by the appellant.

3.1 Leamed CIT(A) grossly erred in stating facts regarding pendency of SLP before supreme court in same matter merely by copying an incorrect assertion from the AO's assessment order of 2018. Infact the Supreme Court's order in similar matter in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT was already passed in 2018 & the appellant's suo-moto disallowance of Rs.20,72,918/- is in li