KAVISH IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 14 (1), NEW DELHI

1 . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No.1002/DEL/2026 (A.Y 2014-15) M/s. Kavish Impex P. ITO Ltd., H. NO. 4165, 3rd Vs. Ward- 14 (1) Floor, Aradhya Homes, Delhi Ansal Versalia Sector- 67A, Gurgaon -122001 Haryana PAN No.AADCK4181C Appellant None Respondent Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2014-15. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

2 . 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,31,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is unsustainable both on facts and in law and liable to be deleted. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding proceedings initiated pursuant to thereby rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. notice which was barred by limitation, 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of the impugned notice issued in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 64, and consequently in sustaining proceedings which are barred by limitation. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining proceedings initiated on the basis of an incorrect and non-existent allegation, since the appellant had not entered into any transaction with the alleged entity during the year under consideration, rendering the proceedings bad in law. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the impugned notice issued in violation of the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, thereby rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, despite the appellant having shown sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, and inasmuch as no prejudice is caused to the Revenue,

3 . 2. At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that there was a delay of 728 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), although a detailed application for delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) has been filed but the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. Counsel further made a prayer before the Bench that the reasons for condonation may kindly be considered and the matter be remanded back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted before the Bench that the order has also been passed exparte in this case and, therefore, the assessee filed detailed and relevant documents before the AO in support of its claim.

4 . considered view that there is no doubt that the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal of 728 days is a big delay but as the assessee has submitted that the business of the company was shut down because of continues and heavy losses and directors of the company because of their ill heath did not check the income tax portal in time there was a delay in filing the appeal.

Order pronounced in open Court on 16.07.2026.

.

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated : 16/07/2026 *Neha Sr. PS*

5 .