What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the closure of business activities leading to mismanagement can be considered a sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals. The CIT(A) had failed to condone the delay, which the Tribunal found inappropriate.

The assessee filed appeals with significant delays for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2013-14. The assessee explained the delay was due to the company's business activities shutting down, leading to mismanagement and a lack of regular staff to handle statutory compliances.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained due to business closure and mismanagement, and if the CIT(A) erred in not condoning such delay.

Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs ACIT | s.250, 144 | ITAT Nagpur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, CA

For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Hearing: 10.06.2026Pronounced: 11.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (for short, "CIT(A)"), all dated 26/12/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "Act") for

ITA Nos. 114, 115, 190 & 191/NAG/2026 (Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd.) the Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 & 2013-14 and 2013-14 & 2018-19 respectively. 2. On hearing both the sides, at the outset, we were apprised that ITA No. 190 & 191/NAG/2026 and for A.Y. 2013-14 & 2018-19 respectively are duplicate files as the assessee had filed them on e- filing portal, but due to glitches, assessee was not sure as to if they were accepted, therefore, assessee had filed ITA Nos. 114 & 115/NAG/2026 by physical mode also.

In the light of aforesaid, ITA Nos. 190 & 191/NAG/2026 for A.Y. 2013-14 & 2018-19 respectively are dismissed as withdrawn.

Now, coming to merits of these appeals in ITA No.114/NAG/2026 & ITA No.115/NAG/2026, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as there was delay in filing of the appeals. For A.Y. 2018-19, there was a delay of 412 days and for A.Y. 2013-14, there was delay of 812 days. We find that assessments were also concluded under Section 144 of the Act.

During hearing, Ld. DR has vehemently argued that the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, is very judicious as the

ITA Nos. 114, 115, 190 & 191/NAG/2026 (Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd.) delay actually remained unexplained. However, Ld. Counsel has demonstrated before us that business activity of the assessee company were abruptly shut down in A.Y. 2005-06 and there was no regular accountant etc. to take care of the multiple functions with statutory bodies and for that reason, the impugned orders were left out of consideration and it is only subsequently when one of the Directors has taken up the affairs of the company, a new consultant was appointed and thereby there was a delay.

We are of the considered view that where assessee gives an explanation of business activities being closed leading to mismanagement of the business functions, Ld. Tax Authorities should accept the same as a sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals as companies can only represent through their officers.

In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we consider it an appropriate case where Ld. CIT(A) has failed to condone the delay. The appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purposes and the issues on merits as well as law are restored to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to give a fresh

ITA Nos. 114, 115, 190 & 191/NAG/2026 (Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd.) opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the appeals on merits afresh.

In the result, ITA No.114/NAG/2026 & ITA No.115/NAG/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 190/NAG/2026 & ITA No. 191/NAG/2026 are dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in open Court on 11.06.2026 Sd/– Sd/– ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 11/06/2026 Z.U, P.S Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order

Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Nagpur

APEX DETONATORS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments