BEST AGROLIFE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-28, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 682/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 4 days in filing. The assessee claimed the appeals were filed within time from receiving the order and sought condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of a minor delay without condoning it and deciding the appeals on merits. Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 153,Section 153C,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI

Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL&

Hearing: 28/04/2026Pronounced: 29/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI

BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.682/DEL/2026 & ITA No. 683/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s Best Agrolife Limited Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28 S-1A, Ground Floor New Delhi Bhagwan Dass Nagar, Punjabi Bagh S.O. West Delhi-110026 PAN No. AAACS0225L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Rahul, CA Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT. DR

Date of hearing: 28/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 29/04/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 01.05.2025 pertaining to A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 arising out the

assessment order 21-03-2024 u/s 153 of the Income Tax Act (in short “the Act”).

3.

These appeals are time barred by 175 days. In the condonation application the assessee stated that the appeal should have filed within 60 days but filed 175 days of delay. He stated that delay in filing appeal is neither intentionally nor deliberately but occurred due to bona He further stated that earlier consultant did not file the appeal of the assessee within time. The newly appointed consultant after collecting the papers filed this appeal. In the support of the application the assessee has also filed affidavit. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file the appeal within time. We find merit of the contention of the assessee, and condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18.This company was earlier known as M/s Sahyog Credits Ltd. A search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of the Act was carried out on the Alankit Group. Sh. Alok K. Agarwal on 18-10-2019. Incriminating seized evidences recovered from during the course of search proceedings. Some incriminating documents were found from the premise in the name of the assessee. Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to assessee to file return of

income for the relevant assessment year. Again, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings after making the various addition under section 69C for the both assessment year. 5. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeals for the both assessment year which were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by the common order dated 01-05-2025. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order as under; 3.1 As mentioned at the outset, against the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act dated 21-03-2024, the appellant filed an appeal vide Form No. 35 dated 24-04- 2024, resulting in delay of 4 days in filing appeal. In column No. 2© of the form no. 35(appeal memo) the appellant has mentioned the date of service of the assessment order/ Notice of Demand as 25-03-2024. However, no details substantiating documents evidence or affidavit has been furnished for such claim. In column No.14 the appellant has not admitted to any delay in filing appeal.

6.

The Ld. AR of the assessee raised the various grounds along with ground that the appeals were dismissed on the sole ground that were filed with a delay of 4 days. He further stated that the appeal was filed with in time from the receiving the order. There, was no delay in filing the appeals. 7.The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). and submitted that no application for condonation was filed. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay. The Ld. AR stated that the appeals were filed within time then the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay if any in filing the appeals and should have decided the appeals on merits. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause that the appeal was filed within time from the receiving the order therefore, Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have decided the appeal on merit. Thus, keeping the entire aspect of the matter, we condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) having being satisfied with the explanation so rendered by the assessee before the said authority. The orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are setting side, the issue to the files are restored

before the Ld. CIT(A), who decide the matter of the files after, giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court 29.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) ( SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR bhatnagar Date: 29.04.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →