SHRIMP IMPORVEMENT SYSTEMS INDIA P LTD,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6608/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee, especially since the assessee claimed the AO did not provide sufficient opportunity or issue a show cause notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) without admitting additional evidence. The assessee sought condonation of a 17-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to an oversight by their consultant's employee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting and adjudicating upon the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Whether the AO provided adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD

Hearing: 02.04.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6608/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Shrimp Improvement Vs. Assessing Officer Delhi Systems India P. Ltd. C/o Lall & Company Chartered Accountants 31, Sirifort Road New Delhi PAN No.AARCS3006L Appellant Respondent

Appellant by Sh. Siddhant Goyal, CA Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.07.2025 for the A.Y. 2018- 19 in sustaining the additions / disallowances made by the AO in the Assessment order.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal of the assesse was disposed of by

the Ld. CIT(A) without admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee. This appeal is filed with the delay of 17 days and assessee filed petition for condonation of delay. The assessee explained that the delay occurred due to the employee of the company’s consultant Sh. Anup Saxena while filing the assessee’s tax audit report on 28.09.2025 came to know that the order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 24.07.2025. It was explained that when the employee checked his mailbox and official e-mail pertaining to A.Y.2018-19 containing the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) had inadvertently escaped his attention. It was also explained that this oversight occurred for the reason that on the very same date another order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC pertaining to A.Y.2016-17 was also received via e-mail which employee had duly communicated to the management of the consulting firm. However, due to inadvertent oversight the order relating to A.Y. 2018-19 was not brought to the notice of the management by oversight therefore, the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate but was occurred due to oversight and requested for condonation of delay.

3.

On hearing both the sides and perusing the affidavit and petition for condonation of delay we observed that the assessee was prevented with sufficient reason in filing the appeal before the Tribunal with delay. Thus, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4.

Coming to merits of the case the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) completely ignored the additional evidences and application filed under Rule 46A while disposing of the appeal of the assessee. It is stated that additions/ disallowances made were simply sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) without admitting the additional evidences.

5.

Ld. Counsel further stated that the additional evidences had to be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the AO did not provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also in absence of any show cause notice u/s.144B of the Act the relevant documents could not be furnished before the AO. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that since the AO did not issue a show cause notice the assessee filed additional evidences before Ld. CIT(A) which were not taken cognizance by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it is submitted that in the interest of justice it is requested that the appeal be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues afresh after considering the additional evidences placed on record.

6.

The Ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

7.

On hearing both parties and perusing the evidences placed before us and going through the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

of the assessee without admitting and giving any finding on the additional evidences filed by the assessee. It is also the contention of the assessee that no show cause notice was issued by the AO and therefore, additional evidences had to be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on the additions/ disallowances made by the AO.

8.

Thus, in the interest of justice we restored this appeal of the assessee to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [AMITABH SHUKLA] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15.05.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →