Sharda Exports vs DCIT

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 20.08.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Meerut/10103/2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 26 days. Before us, an application for condonation of delay as filed alongwith an affidavit of one Shri Juzar Singh, Senior office Admin and Audit Manager of M/s Raj Kumar & Associates, Chartered Accountants. In the said petition, it is stated that assessee has sent the appellate order for the preparation of the appeal to the office of its counsel Shri Raj Kumar, CA where the same was delivered to Shri Juzar Singh and was got mixed up with the audit papers and skipped his attention to deliver it to Shri Raj Kumar. Later when the said order was come to the notice of Shri Juzar Singh, he immediately rushed and handed the same to Shri Raj Kumar for the preparation and filing the appeal. Due to this reason the appeal was filed delayed by 26 days. This fact was affirmed by Shri Juzar Singh in his affidavit. It is thus submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor willful and occurred due to bonafide reason thus it is requested to condone the delay.

Per contra, Ld. CIT DR opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.

Having considered the arguments of both the parties. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 26 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit ought not to be rejected. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits.

Brief facts of the case are the assessment in the case was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 31.12.2016 at a total income at Rs. 33,94,47,690/-. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT has passed the order u/s 263 of the Act dt. 24.10.2017 holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the AO examine the issue of eligibility of deduction u/s 80IC on the Duty Draw back claimed by the assessee. Thereafter in compliance to the directions given by the ld. PCIT, the AO passed the impugned order wherein the 25% of the duty draw back on which deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was claimed by the assessee was disallowed and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 35,02,41,426/-. Against the said order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 28.08.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the said, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal as per the appeal Memo.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is observed that the coordinate bench of ITAT in ITA No. 7618/Del/2017 vide order dated 27.02.2025 has quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act dt. 24.10.2017. Therefore, the consequent order passed in compliance to the directions given in the order passed u/s 263 become infructuous and accordingly the same is hereby treated as null and void. Both the grounds of the appeal taken by the assessee are thus, allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.