VISVESVARYA CONSULTANCY,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 35(5), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2703/Del/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21

M/s. Visvesvarya Consultancy v. ITO, Ward 35(5), NRI Residency Tower-4 Civic Center , New Delhi Flat No. 404 , Sector-45 Gautam Budh Nagar, (Assessment Unit NOIDA-201301,U.P. Income Tax Department PAN : AAJFV0762F. New Delhi) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Naman Gupta, CA. Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Senior DR.

Date of hearing : 11.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 15.06.2026

ORDER This appeal in ITA No.2703/Del/2026 for assessment year 2020-21 has arisen from the appellate order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1084848568(1)), which, in turn, has arisen from the assessment order dated

2 ITA No.2703/Del/2026

27.02.2025 passed by learned Assessing Officer (Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department) under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act(DIN : ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1073794266(1)). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income u/s 139(1), for the impugned assessment year. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee is engaged in providing technical and professional services. The department was in possession of the information received through insight portal as per Risk Management Strategy that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs. 96,51180/- (detailed in page 2 of assessment order) has escaped assessment , and the assessee has not filed income tax return. The reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated against the assessee by reopening of the assessment as the Revenue has reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Revenue followed the procedure as laid down u/s 148A before issuing notice u/s 148. The assessee did not respond to notice u/s 148A(b) issued by the AO, which led to an order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 26.03.2024 by the AO. Notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2024 was issued by the AO. Notices u/s 142(1) as well SCN’s were issued from time to time by the AO during reassessment proceedings. The assessee filed part replies before the AO during reassessment proceedings. The details of issuance of notices as well response of the assessee are duly recorded in the reassessment order passed

3 ITA No.2703/Del/2026

by the AO at page 2-3. The assessee did not filed return of income u/s 139, but filed return of income on 21.07.2024 in response to notice issued u/s 148, declaring income of Rs. 8,21,100/-. During reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not file complete replies before the AO, despite several notices issued by the AO. The books of accounts were rejected by the AO. Since, the assessee was not forthcoming with replies despite several opportunities granted , the AO made additions on three counts, firstly an addition of Rs. 11,95,515/- on account of concealing the turnover being undisclosed contract income not reported by the assessee in its P&L account/GSTR vis-à-vis the income reported by the clients to whom assessee was rendering services based on the information obtained by the AO pursuant to enquiry conducted u/s 133(6), secondly on account of claim of deduction to the tune of Rs.35,317/- which was reduced from income for separate consideration by the assessee itself, but the same was not added to the income separately by the assessee , and thirdly on account of disallowance by the AO of the assessee’s claim of expenses aggregating to the tune of Rs. 18,65,540/- (detailed in page 24-25 of the reassessment order) for which no supporting evidences to justify such expenditure were provided by the assessee. Thus, the AO assessed income of the assessee at Rs.38,82,155/- , as against returned income filed by the assessee in response to notice issued by the AO u/s 148 to the tune of Rs. 8,21,100/- .

4 ITA No.2703/Del/2026

5 ITA No.2703/Del/2026

filing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay. There is no mention of the details and date of notices issued by ld. CIT(A) to the assessee in the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) , nor there are any details found of service of notices. Principle of natural justice are clearly breached. The assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 09.05.2026 issued by Mr. Parminer Modi, Partner of the assessee averring the detailed reasons wrt filing of the appeal purportedly belatedly with ld. CIT(A)(paper book/page 61-62). The assessee has averred in the affidavit that the accountant of the assessee namely Mr. Aniket Kumar passed away on 26.02.2025 in road accident i.e. just one day prior to passing of reassessment order by the AO . it is averred in the affidavit that Mr. Aniket Kumar, Accountant died at AIIMS Hospital. The death certificate is enclosed( placed on record in file – issued by Health Department, NDMC Government of NCT of Delhi, India, Mandir Marg bearing Regn. No. 116 , Application No. JTCD0000116/2025 date of regn. 28.02.2025, date of issue of certificate 09.06.2026) (Page 63/PB) . It is averred in affidavit that the assessee has given email id of Mr. Aniket Kumar with income tax portal, and the assessee did not received reassessment order dated 27.02.2025. It is averred that since the email id of the accountant was given who died one day prior to passing of reassessment order , the said reassessment order was never served on the assessee either through email nor physically, and it came to knowledge of the assessee while filing return of income in last week of

6 ITA No.2703/Del/2026

September, 2025, and immediate steps were taken for filing of appeal with ld. CIT(A) on 03.10.2025. It is further averred that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have issued defect memo if he is not satisfied with the date of service of notice claimed by the assessee in Form No. 35 filed with ld. CIT(A), instead of dismissing the appeal. Thus, it is averred that the delay in filing appeal with ld. CIT(A) was totally unintentional and due to bonafide reasons , and sufficient cause being displayed, the aforesaid delay be condoned. I have gone through the material on record, and I have observed that the assessee has duly explained sufficient cause in filing appeal belatedly with ld. CIT(A) . When technicalities are pitted against advancement of substantive justice, courts will lean towards advancement of substantial justice , unless malice is at writ large or there is a gross negligence . I do not find any malice on the part of the assessee nor there appears to be gross negligence. The assessee is not likely to gain anything by filing appeal belatedly with ld. CIT(A). Reliance is placed on the judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987(2) SCC 107. I , therefore, condone delay of 191 days in filing the appeal belatedly by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) , and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law. The assessee has raised both jurisdictional/legal grounds as well grounds on merits of the issues in appeal , which ld. CIT(A) will adjudicate in accordance

7 ITA No.2703/Del/2026

with law. The ld. CIT(A) will admit evidences filed by the assessee in its support. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Needless to say that proceedings before ld. CIT(A) are extension of assessment proceedings , and powers of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the powers of the AO including power of enhancement. I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issue. I order accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th June, 2026.

Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) Dated: 15th June, 2026 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER