ILD MILLENNIUM PVT LTD,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 7075/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2021-22] ILD Millennium Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax officer, B-418, F/F, New Friends Colony, Circle 10(1), New Delhi-110025. Vs C.R. Building, Delhi-110001. PAN- AAKCS7170C Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Jaspal Singh Sethi, Adv. Revenue by Adjournment application by Ms. Sunita Yonzone, ITO on behalf of Sr. DR is rejected Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is against order dated 12.01.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.12.2022 passed under section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing

ITA No.- 7075/Del/2025 ILD Millennium Pvt. Ltd. . Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the appellate order as passed is against law and facts of the case. 4.. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2,70,21,894/- on the basis of information available from a third party without verifying that the assessee is declaring income under the percentage of completion method (PCM). 5. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2,80,88,750/- merely on the basis of information that the assessee has made time deposits (Fixed Deposits through ‘Renewal’) without looking into the facts that the companies maintaining proper books of accounts and also the fact that the time deposits are renewal of old deposits only. 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings ex- parte in violation of Pr. of natural justice. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in both law and facts by not adjudication on the ground raised by the appellant in appeals filed before him. 6. That the appellate order as passed is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances.”

ITA No.- 7075/Del/2025 ILD Millennium Pvt. Ltd. . 2022-23, ΑΥ 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 which were filed for the end of December 2024. In the interim, the order as passed for AY 2021-22 on 12.01.2024 under appeal also got overlooked and it was only after stream lining of the tax returns, the management could focus on the pending appeal matters. It was only after the management could focus of the pending appeal matters, it was looking for an appropriate professional to take care of the filing of appeals and preparation thereof for the purposes of arguing the same. All these processes resulted in delay of 582 days in filing of appeal. The perusal of the above facts clearly states that there were extra ordinary circumstances in the working of the assessee company resulting in this inordinate delay. In the circumstances, it is requested that the delay in filing in the current appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

3.1 It has further been submitted by the Ld. AR that for identical facts and circumstances, the delay in filing of appeals for other assessment years has been condoned by co-ordinate benches. In support, Ld. AR has filed a copy of the combined order of the co-ordinate bench for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 dated 29.10.2025, wherein the delays for more than 400 days in all the three years have been condoned. 3.2 We have perused the material placed on record. We are of the view that the delay in filing of appeal was due to genuine and reasonable cause. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 582 days in filing of the present appeal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR, has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte as no compliance was made to the two notices issued by him for the same reasons as explained in the application for condonation of delay. He has, therefore,

ITA No.- 7075/Del/2025 ILD Millennium Pvt. Ltd. . requested that the matter may be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. 4.1 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL KUMAR SINGH] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 30.06.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,