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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5811/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and to uphold natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to issues with their authorized representative, preventing proper representation. The assessee requested the case be remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte should be set aside and the case remanded for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's inability to represent its case adequately.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 270A,Section 271B,Section 271AAC

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.5811/Del/2026 (A.Y 2018-19) 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 19.02.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2018-19.

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. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in finalizing the assessment and appellate proceedings without appreciating that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from adequately representing its case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by sustaining an ad- hoc disallowance of 20% (amounting to Rs. 14,80,543/-) out of the total expenses claimed under the heads of Office, Uniform, and Traveling expenses. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,58,936/- u/s 68 of the Act, treating the unsecured loan received from the Director, Mr. Amit Tiwari, as an unexplained cash credit. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,25,485/- claimed on account of donations. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271B, and 271AAC of the Act, without appreciating that the Appellant's defaults were not deliberate but were induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of erstwhile tax consultant, its erstwhile tax consultant. 6.That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds which are without prejudice to each other, before or at the time of hearing.

4 | P a g e

5.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order because of the reasons that the assessee did not get an occasion to file its reply / papers/ details as it had some problem with its authorized representative. During proceedings before us Ld. Counsel of the assessee made prayer to the Bench that as the case has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) exparte so keeping in view the natural justice the matter may kindly be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

6.

Per contra the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal on the basis of material available on record and, therefore, the arguments made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee does not have any basis. The Ld. DR further relied on the order of the authorities below.

7.

We have considered the findings given by the AO in the assessment order and by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order and we have also considered the arguments and prayers made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. During proceedings before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case exparte, therefore, in our

5 | P a g e

considered view keeping in view the element of natural justice the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

8.

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 MEMBR 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 →