Kandahar Hind Dry Fruits vs Income Tax Officer

Both the Appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 25.02.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment orders both dated 27.03.2023under Section 147 r.w. Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act, for Assessment Year 2018-19.

It is the case of the assessee that no notice by the Ld. AO was served upon the e-mail id provided by the assessee to the Department and, therefore, the assessee could not represent its case effectively before the Ld. AO. In that view of the matter, the assessment order was passed ex-parte. Further that before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee since not having the entire set of evidence to support his case, sought for adjournment, whenever notices were issued to the assessee, however, the same was not taken into consideration. Furthermore, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal preferred by the assessee was barred by limitation for about 518 days in quantum matter and ultimately the appeal was dismissed confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO. It has been submitted by the Ld. AR that no application for condonation of delay has been preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) as according to the assessee there was no such delay as the assessment order was served on wrong addresses. Even before us, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay if at all in preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). At this stage, we are not going into the merit of the reason assigned by the assessee in preferring such appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which in our considered opinion to be considered by the Ld. CIT(A) himself. Thus, having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, we are remitting this quantum appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn, will consider the delay if any, in preferring the earlier appeal by the assessee before him in his own way and to pass orders. We also find that the penalty appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation for 416 days which was also directed to be explained by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). We also make it clear that in the event the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) the said authority would be at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order. We also make it clear that we are not observing anything either on the issue or on the delay aspect which is to be considered by the appropriate authority at the proper stage.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.