SATYAJIT CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. TDS OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical and the appeals pertain to the same assessee, they were clubbed together and heard together. Accordingly, a consolidated order is being passed.

For the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall first of all, take up ITA No. 4402/MUM/2026 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2

At the very outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was rejected as the same was not found to be within limitation and there was a delay of approximately 9 years.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the order passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that the application seeking condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has been reproduced herein below:

After perusal of the said application, we find that no specific grounds or details were mentioned by the assessee, nor was anything substantiating the contention made in the said application placed on record.

Whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that no opportunity at all was granted to the assessee by the learned CIT(A) while adjudicating this appeal, as the said appeal was filed on 9-2-2026 and the same was decided within six days (within a week) on 16-2-2026 without serving any notice upon the assessee.

It was further submitted that the assessee was having a reasonable and sufficient cause which the assessee could have produced before the learned CIT(A) for seeking condonation of delay. It was also submitted that the assessee could have demonstrated that it had a good case on merits and that no addition would have been made at all.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised in the present appeal, we are of the view that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to establish its case for seeking condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in an effective manner. Thus, in view of the same, we restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee is also at liberty to furnish documentary evidence, if any, so as to justify sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay.

Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited by the assessee in the PM's National Relief Fund, and the receipt of the same shall be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Needless to mention, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar to those involved in ITA No. 4402/MUM/2026, the findings and decisions rendered in the preceding paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals as well.