KLARKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. CIR-2(1)(1) GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5810/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine due to this delay without providing an opportunity to explain. The assessee's grounds of appeal included the dismissal in limine and confirmation of additions made by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting an opportunity to explain the delay, and whether the case should be remanded for a de novo assessment due to ex-parte orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 270A,Section 271AAC,Section 271B,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Ms. Sanja
Hearing: 11.08.2026Pronounced: 11.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T A. No.5810/Del/2026 (A.Y 2017-18) Klarke India Private Cir-2(1)(1) Ghaziabad Vs. Limited 2-38, Sahini Tower, Sector-5 Rajendra Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad -201005 PAN No.AAFCK0368P

Appellant by: Ms. Sanja Khurana, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 11.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.08.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18.

1 | P a g e

2.

Registry has pointed out a delay of 366 days in filing of this appeal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under :-

2 | P a g e

3 | P a g e

3.

After going through the issue mentioned in the application we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. DR argued that matter may be decided on merit. The delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and admitted for adjudication.

4.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :-

1.

That the CIT(A)/NFAC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on account of a delay in filing appeal without granting the Appellant an opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay.

2.

That the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts by failing to decide the appeal on its merits, thereby denying the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard

3.

That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs. 2,17,11,596/-under Section 68 of the Act, treating the increase in share capital and borrowings as "unexplained cash credits"

4.

The CIT(A) erred in confirming the Addition of Rs. 82,55,124/- made by the AO by arbitrarily estimating the income of the Appellant @8% of the total turnover of Rs.13,55,89,050/-.

5.

The CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty proceedings u/s.270A, 271AAC, 271B, and 272 A(1)(d) of the Act, without appreciating that the defaults were induced by the criminal breach of trust by the Appellant’s consultant.

5.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the AO and appellate

4 | P a g e

order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are exparte order. Thus, the assessee did not get any occasion to file details/ papers relevant for bring on record material facts in the case and made a prayer to remand this case back to the file of the AO.

6.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.

7.

We have considered the findings given by the authorities below in their respective orders and we have also considered the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel of the assesse.

8.

During proceedings before us we find that both orders passed by the AO and later on the appellate exparte order by the Ld. CIT(A) so keeping in view of natural justice that assessee should get an opportunity to bring on record relevant papers and documents, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the AO. Thus, the case is remanded back to the file of the AO for denovo order. The assessee is directed to file all the relevant necessary papers and documents/ details before the AO at the earliest so that the Revenue could pass order in time.

5 | P a g e

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.08.2026.

SD

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 13/08/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →