M/S. KAYCEE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4207/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/s. Kaycee Finstock DCIT Circle 2(1)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 705, 7th Floor, Maker Vs. Maharshi Karve Rd, Chamber V, Nariman New Marine Line, Point, Mumbai-400021 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AACCK6191P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shefali Garg, 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 12.02.2026 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"], arising from the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 passed under

2 ITA No. 4207/Mum/2026 M/s. Kaycee Finstock Private Limited section 147 read with section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised grounds challenging the action of the learned CIT(A) in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently not adjudicating the grounds relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 and the addition of Rs.8,07,125/- made by disallowing loss claimed by the assessee. Facts of the Case 3. The assessee company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring total income at Nil. The case was reopened pursuant to information received through the Insight Portal alleging that the assessee had entered into transactions in certain penny stock scrips allegedly connected with a syndicate headed by Shri Naresh Jain. Accordingly, notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2022 was issued and reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the assessment was completed vide order dated 15.03.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed loss of Rs.8,07,125/- claimed by the assessee on sale of shares and assessed the total income at Rs.8,07,125/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appeal came to be filed on 16.08.2024. The learned CIT(A) noticed that the appeal was

3 ITA No. 4207/Mum/2026 M/s. Kaycee Finstock Private Limited filed with a delay of 123 days beyond the prescribed period and called upon the assessee to explain the delay. 5. As recorded in paragraph 2.7 of the impugned order, the assessee explained that no appeal had initially been filed against the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 as there was no immediate monetary consequence arising from the assessment order. However, subsequently, a penalty order dated 05.08.2024 under section 270A of the Act was received, based upon the assessment order for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee further stated that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to settled principles of taxation and, therefore, requested that the delay be condoned. 6. The learned CIT(A), however, held that the explanation furnished by the assessee did not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) observed that ignorance of law is no excuse and further held that the explanation furnished by the assessee was vague and unsupported by verifiable facts. On this basis, the delay of 123 days was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed in limine without adjudicating any of the grounds raised on merits. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative(AR) submitted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay and failed to adjudicate the issues arising from the assessment order. Referring to paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 of the appellate order, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had furnished an explanation for the

4 ITA No. 4207/Mum/2026 M/s. Kaycee Finstock Private Limited delay and had requested condonation thereof. However, without appreciating the surrounding circumstances and without considering the merits of the case, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. 8. The learned AR further submitted that the consequence of the impugned order is that the assessee has been deprived of its statutory right of first appeal. It was contended that substantial issues relating to reopening under section 147 and disallowance of loss of Rs.8,07,125/- remain completely unexamined. The learned AR, therefore, prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the ground that the delay of 123 days was not liable to be condoned. It is equally undisputed that none of the substantive grounds raised by the assessee challenging the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs.8,07,125/- were adjudicated by the learned CIT(A). 11. The right of appeal is a valuable statutory right. The provisions relating to condonation of delay are intended to

5 ITA No. 4207/Mum/2026 M/s. Kaycee Finstock Private Limited advance substantial justice and not to defeat it. While considering an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority is expected to adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. Unless the conduct of the litigant demonstrates deliberate negligence, mala fides or lack of bona fides, a liberal approach is ordinarily warranted so that disputes are decided on merits rather than on technical considerations. 12. In the present case, the delay involved is 123 days. The assessee furnished an explanation before the learned CIT(A) and requested condonation of delay. Whether the explanation ultimately merits acceptance or not, we find that the effect of the impugned order is that the assessee's appeal has been rejected at the threshold and the issues arising from the assessment order have remained completely unexamined. The assessment order involves issues concerning the validity of reopening under section 147 as well as the disallowance of loss of Rs.8,07,125/-. These issues deserve examination on merits by the first appellate authority. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the explanation furnished by the assessee, the relatively limited period of delay involved and the settled principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the delay is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits.

6 ITA No. 4207/Mum/2026 M/s. Kaycee Finstock Private Limited 14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee on merits, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues involved and all contentions of both parties are left open.

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) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 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