STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 24(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1050/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and perused the documents, including the additional evidence. It found that the assessee was non-compliant before the AO and had made only partial compliance before the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal was persuaded by the assessee's assertion that it was now in a position to furnish necessary documents to justify the genuineness of the impugned transactions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to consider all relevant documents that would be filed by the assessee and pass a reasoned order. The Tribunal did not decide the issues on merit but allowed the appeals for statistical purposes to facilitate a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sterino Exim Private Limited, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed ex parte orders under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's non-compliance was attributed to the company being struck off the records of the Registrar of Companies, leading to administrative non-functioning and inability to respond to notices. Before the CIT(A), the assessee's new evidence was summarily rejected due to lack of supporting documents like audited financials, income tax returns, or bank statements of lending parties. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on similar grounds for both years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid, considering the assessee's claim of cessation of operations and inability to respond to notices? (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merit were justified, given the alleged lack of supporting documentation for the impugned transactions? (Mixed question of law and fact) 3. Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that due to the cessation of operations, compliance before the AO was impossible. It was also contended that the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) was not considered. The assessee claimed to have gathered considerable documentation to prove the genuineness of the impugned transactions and prayed for a remand to the AO for furnishing these evidences. The assessee also relied on the principle of natural justice regarding denial of opportunity. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below, arguing that in the absence of supporting documents, the genuineness of the impugned transactions could not be verified, as highlighted by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.05.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A No.1050/Del/2026
I.T.A No.1051/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ITA Nos.1050 & 1051/Del/2026 STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1050/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, Vs. ITO, M-134, 2nd Floor, Connaught Place, Ward 24(1), New Delhi, Delhi 110002. C.R. Building, New Delhi, PAN No. AARCS7495K Delhi 110001. Appellant Respondent & I.T.A No.1051/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, Vs. ITO, M-134, 2nd Floor, Connaught Place, Ward 24(1), New Delhi, Delhi 110002. C.R. Building, New Delhi, PAN No. AARCS7495K Delhi 110001. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ajay Kumar, AR Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 25.05.2026 Pronouncement on 25.05.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These two appeals pertained to the same assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. Appeal No.1050/Del/2026 arises from order dated 04.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi. ITA No.1051/Del/2026 arises from order dated 04.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 1

ITA Nos.1050 & 1051/Del/2026 STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED In these cases, the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for the both the years. The explanation furnished by the assessee for such non-compliance before the Ld. AO was that the company was struck off from the record of Registrar of Companies. In light of this the said Company was not functioning administratively and hence the notices sent by the Ld. AO could not be responded to.

1.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed written submissions and certain new evidences which are seen to have been summarily dealt with and rejected on the ground that there were no supporting documents in the shape of audited financials, Income tax returns, or even bank statements of the lending parties made available in justification of a claim that the impugned transactions were genuine. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the basis of largely similar findings in the two impugned orders.

1.2 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with detailed and argumentative grounds of appeal which challenge the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO and also challenge the additions on merit. There is also a prayer that there was denial of opportunity to the assessee. It is also seen that for AY 2014-15 there is an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued that due to the cessation of operations of the assessee company no compliance could be made before

ITA Nos.1050 & 1051/Del/2026 STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED the Ld. AO and it was pointed out that additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A) were also not considered. The Ld. AR stated that for both the years under consideration the assessee has put together considerable documentation in support of his claim that the impugned transactions were genuine. It was the prayer that these matters may be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO so that the assessee is able to furnish evidences before the Ld. AO in support of his claim.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that in the absence of supporting documents as mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A), there was no way in which the genuineness of the impugned transactions could be verified.

3.

We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR. We have also perused the documents before us, including the additional evidence proposed to be filed before us. We find that the assessee was non-compliant before the Ld. AO and even before the Ld. CIT(A) he has made partial compliance at best. We are considerably persuaded by the Ld. AR’s averments that the assessee is now in a position to furnish necessary documents in justification of his claim that the impugned transactions are genuine. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside both the impugned orders and remand these cases back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The ld. AO would consider all

ITA Nos.1050 & 1051/Del/2026 STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED relevant documents which would be invariably filed by the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned order in both cases.

4.

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 01.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

ITA Nos.1050 & 1051/Del/2026 STERINO EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED

Sr. No. Particulars Date 1 Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 27.05.2026 2 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the 29.05.2026 Dictation Member 3 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the 01.06.2026 other Member (in the case of DB) 4 Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the 01.06.2026 Sr. P.S. /P.S. 5 Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the 01.06.2026 Dictating Member for sign 6 Date on which the fair Order is placed before the other Member 01.06.2026 for sign (in the case of DB) 7 Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S. /P.S 01.06.2026 for uploading on ITAT website 8 Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 01.06.2026 9 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 01.06.2026 10 Date on which order goes for xerox 11 Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12 Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent/O.S. for checking 13 Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14 Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15 Date of dispatch of order 16 Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →