NEPTUNE TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company but had not filed its return of income for AY 2019-20. The case was reopened and was selected for scrutiny through reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from Insight portal that the assessee had made transactions/receipts of ₹5,70,335/- from four parties and made cash deposits amounting to ₹14,60,000/-, withdrawals of ₹7,43,75,000/- and the assessee had business transactions in respect of sales amounting to ₹13,88,55,792/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income showing total income of ₹1,90,170/- . The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') added a sum of ₹14,60,000/- in respect of issue of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, ₹2,77,71,158/- in respect of issue of G.P. addition, ₹5,70,335/- in respect of issue of interest received to the total income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹2,99,91,663/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noted that there was ITA No(s). 3123/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Neptune Traders Pvt. Ltd. delay of 06 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason being the computer operator of the assessee could not attend office due to sudden attack of cough and cold. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the facts of the case pertaining to the delay, justification for the delay and citing several decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts held that there was no merit in the reasons mentioned in Form No. 35 of appeal for condonation of delay and the assessee had not been able to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non-filing the appeal within due time. The Ld. CIT(A) also held the delay of 6 days to be unjustified for a person who is vigilant about his affairs. The assessee had neglected/omitted to assert his rights of appeal in a timely manner. Hence the request for condonation of delay was rejected and accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the sole ground of delay in filing the appeal before him.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by the Ld. AR at the outset that the delay of six days was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed on account of delay without discussing the merits of the case. The Bench was of the view that on the facts mentioned, the delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merits. After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him for disposal of ITA No(s). 3123/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Neptune Traders Pvt. Ltd. the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th May, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11.05.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order