KATYAINI IMAGES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(WARD14(1)), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4246/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issue on merits and law to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-appearance. The ITAT noted a delay in filing the appeal before it. The assessee's counsel cited professional incompetence of the previous CA and health issues of the MD as reasons for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on merits before the lower authorities, despite previous non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 08.05.2026Pronounced: 08.05.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

The appeal along with application for early hearing was listed today

and on hearing both side we find that in an order passed u/s 147/144 of the

P a g e | 2 ITA No.4246/Del/2026 Katyaini Images India Pvt. ltd. (AY: 2009-10) Income Tax, Act, 1961 addition of only Rs.3,00,000/-have been made u/s 68

on account of alleged unexplained cash credits.

2.

Assessee had failed to appear before ld. CIT(A) where the appeal was

dismissed for non appearance.

3.

We find that there is a delay in filing of the appeal also.

4.

Ld. Counsel has apprised that the chartered accountant who was

engaged by the assessee lacked professional competence to assist the assessee

and failed to represent the case of the assessee. It was also pointed out that

assessee company discontinued the business operation and managing director

of the company, Vinod Kathuria, is aged 70 years and suffering many health

issues for which relevant documentary evidences have been filed. It was also

pointed out that for AY: 2012-13 in the case of Vinod Kathuria vide order

date 06.03.2025 Coordinate Bench had set aside the order for fresh

assessment before the assessing officer.

5.

In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances the Bench was of the

considered view that no purpose would be served by keeping appeal pending

by granting an early hearing. The issue involved is only of addition of

P a g e | 3 ITA No.4246/Del/2026 Katyaini Images India Pvt. ltd. (AY: 2009-10) Rs.3,00,000/- and assessee needs to be given an opportunity to contest on

merits before ld. Tax authorities below.

6.

Accordingly, condoning the delay for filing the appeal before the

Tribunal, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and

issue on merits, as well as law, are restored to the files of ld. Assessing

Officer to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass order

afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 13.05.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →