ARUNODAY MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AccountantMember and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JudicialMember ITA No.2975/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Arunoday Merchants Pvt. Ltd.……...………..............................……….……Appellant C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kol-69. [PAN: AACCA2486K] vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…..………..….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: ShriSubash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Pankaj Pandey, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing :April 23, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28th,2026 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.11.2025passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the A.Y 2012-13. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order by dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 608 days and without discussing and deciding the merits. The ld. AR explained the delay by submitting that while filing the original form 35, the Assessee wrongly mentioned the assessment year as 2011-12 instead of 2012-13. It was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) vide letter dated 16.03.2021and the ld. CIT(A) thereafter passed an order dismissing the appeal of the assessee by extracting the reply of the assessee therein

ITA No.2975/Kol/2025 mentioning the appeal was wrongly filed for assessment year 2011-12. The ld. AR submitted that thereafter the assessee filed the new form 35 and hence the delay. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the delay before the ld. CIT(A) may condoned and the appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench. 4. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 608 days without deciding the issues on merits. The ld. AR explained the reasons for the delay occurring due to error in filing Form 35. We note that there were reasonable and sufficient reasons for the said delay before the ld. CIT(A). Considering the same, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, restore the issues in the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the issues afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Kolkata, the 28th April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rajesh Kumar] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28.04.2026. RS

ITA No.2975/Kol/2025

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches