RAGHUPATI CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR, RAJASTHAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1438/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2019-20)

Raghupati Casting Private Vs. ITO Limited, Circle 1 F-124, Saraswati Alwar Appartments, UG-1, Dilshad Colony, Shahdara, Delhi 110063 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AAECR 6214 N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 09.04.2025 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1438/JPR/2025 Raghupati Casting Private Limited 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and an law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the intimation order without serving notices under Sections 148, 143(2), 142(1), and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. thereby violating principles of natural justice That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made in the intimation order without affording the Appellant adequate opportunity of being heard and without appreciating the facts correctly. The assessed total income of Rs 43,45,259/-is bad in law and unsustainable on various legal and factual grounds. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 43,45,259 as disallowance under the impugned order without adequate justification 3. The appeal is delayed for filing before me by 113 days. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 6 days, which the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the assessment order, I have noted addition has been made to the income of the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases made amounting to Rs.43,02,237/-.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1438/JPR/2025 Raghupati Casting Private Limited 5. He further, pleaded, the Ld. CIT(A) was grossly unjustified in not condoning the small delay of 6 days in filing appeal before him and deciding the issue on merits, since he pointed out, that in the assessment framed, gross injustice was done to the assessee, as the AO had held the purchases made by the assessee to be bogus only on the basis of the investigation report available with him without rebutting or controverting the evidences filed by the assessee in support of his claim that the purchases made were all genuine. He pleaded therefore, that the Ld. CIT(A) be direct to entertain the appeal of the assessee and decide the issue on merits.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1438/JPR/2025 Raghupati Casting Private Limited 8. In the interest of justice, therefore, I condone the delay of 113 days in filing of the present appeal before me. I further, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the minor delay of 6 days in filing of appeal before him and to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee before him afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 25.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur