ASTAMED HEALTH CARE(INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 14(1)(1)I, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4195/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Astamed Health Care Income Tax Officer (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle 14(1)(1) C-201 Ghatkopar Vs. 431, Staff Room Industrial Estate, 475/463, Aayakar L.B.S. Marg, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 086 PAN/GIR No. AADCA8559Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. AR Revenue by Shree Kumar C., Ld. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"]under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2 ITA No. 4195/Mum/2026 Astamed Health Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 704 days (Registry noted a delay of 679 days) in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a Petition for Condonation of Delay along with an affidavit sworn by Shri Nayankumar Natwarlal Thakkar, Director of the assessee- company, explaining the reasons for the delay. 3. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the assessee. Referring to the condonation petition and affidavit filed before us, it was submitted that the impugned order under section 250 dated 07.03.2024 was uploaded only on the e- filing portal and no physical copy thereof was ever served upon the assessee. It was further submitted that though the order was communicated through the registered e-mail ID, the said communication was inadvertently missed and consequently did not come to the attention of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee remained unaware of the passing of the appellate order within the prescribed period for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee became aware of the appellate order only towards the end of March 2026 when a communication was received from the Recovery Department regarding the outstanding demand and when an order under section 154 passed in March 2026 was served upon the assessee. Immediately upon becoming aware of the appellate

3 ITA No. 4195/Mum/2026 Astamed Health Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. order, the assessee contacted its consultant, collected the relevant papers and proceeded to file the present appeal without any further delay. It was submitted that the delay was caused due to bona fide and inadvertent circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and, therefore, the same deserved to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection in condoning the delay. 6. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" appearing in limitation provisions is required to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly and that matters should, as far as possible, be decided on merits rather than on technical considerations. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the explanation furnished in the affidavit, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the present appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 704 days in filing the appeal before us is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Facts of the Case 8. The assessee-company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 09.10.2018 declaring total income at Nil. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under the E-

4 ITA No. 4195/Mum/2026 Astamed Health Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issues relating to Duty Drawback, Unsecured Loans and Expenditure by way of Penalty or Fine for violation of law. Assessment was completed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi vide order dated 25.04.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had reflected unsecured loans and advances amounting to Rs. 20,09,07,179/- in its balance sheet and called upon the assessee to furnish supporting details and evidences. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that although the assessee furnished certain details in response to notices issued under section 142(1), complete details and documentary evidences regarding unsecured loans were not furnished. After considering the material available on record and the partial submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness in respect of certain loan transactions aggregating to Rs.1,67,50,000/-. Accordingly, the said amount was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and taxed in terms of section 115BBE. The Assessing Officer further disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.65,000/- claimed to have been paid on the loan obtained from M/s. Best Techsol Private Limited under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Consequently, assessment was completed at an assessed income of Rs.1,68,15,000/-.

5 ITA No. 4195/Mum/2026 Astamed Health Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. 10. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 25.04.2021, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 176 days. The CIT(A) issued notice requiring the assessee to substantiate the reasons for delay and to file an affidavit. TheCIT(A) observed that although the assessee had undertaken to file an affidavit supporting the condonation request, no affidavit was filed before it. The CIT(A) further held that the reasons stated by the assessee did not satisfactorily explain the delay and that the assessee had failed to explain the delay day-to-day. Accordingly, vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed under section 250 of the Act, the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits.

6 ITA No. 4195/Mum/2026 Astamed Health Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 12. The learned Authorised Representative reiterated the facts as stated in the condonation petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof. He submitted that the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On merits, we find that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds challenging the additions of Rs.1,67,50,000/- under section 68 read with section 115BBE and Rs.65,000/- under section 36(1)(iii). The appeal was dismissed in limine solely on the ground of delay. Since the delay stands condoned by us and considering that the assessee deserves an effective opportunity of hearing on the substantive issues raised in appeal, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions and all issues are left open for adjudication by the CIT(A).

7 ITA No. 4195/Mum/2026 Astamed Health Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 24/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai