AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 23.10.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 28.06.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1.That the order of the learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)) is bad in law and wrong on facts.
2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)has erred in rejecting the condonation of delay in filing of appeal due to technical glitches encountered by the appellant and dismissing the appeal on this ground.
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)) has erred in not providing the remand report of the assessing officer to the appellant and confirming the following additions/disallowances:-
A) addition on account of duty drawback of Rs. 88,02,132/-
B) disallowance of claim of any other amount allowable as
deduction in schedule-bp in ITR of Rs. 9,27,95,372/-
C) disallowance of other expenses of Rs.57,00,000/-
D) disallowance of interest expenses on trade of Rs.28,38,00,000/-
The assessee was called absent.
The Ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) through his order dated 23.10.2025 confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO qua the merits of the addition. The Ld. DR argued in favour of the order of lower authorities. It was contended that the order has been made after carefully considering the varied facts of this case in the light of material available on records.
We note that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had submitted that due to technical glitches, the appeal could not be filed in time. However, ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay as the reasons stated for condoning the delay were not found to be satisfactory. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecuting his/her case. We have also noted that the ld. CIT(A) has not given any detailed finding as to the decision of not condoning the impugned delay. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. Accordingly, we remit the file to the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo, in accordance with law and after passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with the statutory notices and any non-compliance would be adversely viewed. The appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.