KANDAHAR HIND DRY FRUITS,DELHI vs. ITO, W-47(1), NEW DELHI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4778/Del/2026 (A.Y 2018-19) ITA No. 4779/Del/2026 (A.Y 2018-19)

Kandahar Hind Dry Fruits Vs. Income Tax Officer, 544-A Katra Ishwar Ward-47(1) Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AANFK6839N Assessee by : Sh. Shaantanu Jain, Adv & Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Sudip Majumdar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2026 Date of pronouncement 14/09/2026

O R D E R PER BENCH: 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.

served upon the e-mail id provided by the assessee to the Department

2 ITA No. 4778& 4779/Del/2026 Kandahar Hind Dry Fruits Vs. ITO

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

3 ITA No. 4778& 4779/Del/2026 Kandahar Hind Dry Fruits Vs. ITO

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.

for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14/09/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi