ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NIPRO MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. NIPRO Medical (India) Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCN4008J (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (��थ�/ Respondent)

C.O. No.16/Hyd/2026 (In आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025) (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. NIPRO Medical (India) Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCN4008J (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant in appeal) (��थ�/ Cross Objector / Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri Kishore Phadke, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri K Prasad, Sr-AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 16/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 19/06/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax

2 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 12/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28/03/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. Also, the assessee company is before us as a Cross-Objector. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal by holding that the consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 had become infructuous on the assumption that the Hon'ble ITAT had quashed the order u/s.263. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and perverse on facts since the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order (ITA No.531/Hyd/2024) dated 20.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee against order u/s 263. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the addition of Rs.4,04,17,614 made to book profits under section 115JB, despite full submissions and evidence placed before him. The impugned order therefore violates section 250(6) of the Act, being bereft of reasoned findings on each ground of appeal. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the consequential assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 263 was passed strictly in pursuance of the directions issued u/s 263 and as sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT, and that it required independent adjudication on the issues of law and fact arising therefrom. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the AO had rightly added back bad debts written off amounting to Rs.4,04,17,614/ while computing book profit under Section 115JB, as the same was not covered by the prescribed adjustments to book profit as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 5. The order of the CIT(A) is perverse and deserves to be set aside as it has been passed without properly appreciating the findings of the Hon'ble ITAT and the facts established on record.”

3 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited income of Rs. NIL. Thereafter, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act.

4 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited 6. Thereafter, the AO gave effect to the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, dated 25/03/2024, and vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, dated 28/03/2025, assessed the “book profit” of the assessee company at Rs. 5,53,94,825/-

5 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record.

6 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited been upheld by the Tribunal, and the assessee company's appeal has been dismissed. The Ld. Sr-DR submitted that as the CIT(A) had vacated the addition made by the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act,28/03/2025, based on his wrong observation that the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, dated 25/03/2024, had been quashed by the Tribunal; the impugned order so passed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

7 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay in filing the cross-objection by the assessee company. In our view, as there is a justifiable reason leading to the delay, the same, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, merits to be condoned. Our aforesaid view that a liberal approach should be adopted for condoning the delay involved in the appeal is supported by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of the delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal.

8 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited same. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the

observations of the Tribunal in ITA No.531/Hyd/2024, dated 20/12/2024,

as under:

“9. With regard to ground no.2 the Ld. AR submitted that, the show cause notice was issued on one issue and final conclusion was drawn by the Ld. PCIT on different issue without issuing any opportunity to the show cause notice nor providing any assessee. We have gone through the provisions contained in section 263 of the Act. As per the provisions contained under 263, no show cause notice is required to be given to the assessee, however, as per the mandate of the section, an opportunity of being heard must be given to the assessee. We have also gone through the page nos.265 to 268 of the paper book, which is related to the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. PCIT on 20.03.2024, wherein the assessee has filed his submissions with regard to the other issue of the Ld. PCIT on the basis of which conclusion has been drawn by the Ld. PCIT. The submission has been made by the assessee on 20.03.2024 and the date of order of the Ld. PCIT is 25.03.2024 i.e. after the date of the submission made by the assessee. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee that no opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee is rejected. Therefore, we dismiss the ground no.2 of the assessee. 10. As far as the objection of the assessee under ground nos. 3 to 5 with regard to the verification of MOU qua write off of bad debts is concerned, it is important to note that, the first two reasons for selection of the scrutiny was related to verification of genuineness of expenses and claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed a major amount of Rs.4,04,17,615/- as bad debt, which was required to be verified and scrutinized by the Ld. AO as per the reason recorded for selection of the case for scrutiny. Further, the debt which had been written off during the year under consideration were taken over through the MOU. Therefore, in our considered opinion, although the MOU had been executed in A.Y. 2015-16, the Ld. AO should have verified the reasonability of taking over of such book debt through MOU. We have gone through the order of Ld. AO, however, we did not find any recording of satisfaction by the Ld. AO qua verification / examination of writing off of bad debts. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, there was a major fault on the part of the Ld. AO that he did not verify the write off of bad debts. Non- verification of the same by the Ld. AO make the order of the Ld. AO erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per the provisions contained under Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, we do not find any infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground nos.3 to 5 of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.”

Sr-DR’s contention that as the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA

9 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited No.531/Hyd/2024, dated 20/12/2024, has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee company against the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, dated 25/03/2024, thus, a serious infirmity had crept in the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 12/08/2025, who had vacated the addition made by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, dated 28/03/2025, by wrongly observing that as the Tribunal had quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, thus there remained no valid revisionary order to support any further consequential order purportedly passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: “Since the ITAT, being the competent appellate authority, has quashed the Section 263 order passed by the Pr. CIT, there exists no valid revisionary order to support any further consequential order purportedly passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263. Therefore, the AO's original assessment order stands confirmed, and the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 are rendered ineffective. In view of the above, and following the binding decision of the ITAT, on the appeal directly filed against the Section 263 order, the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since, the impugned Section 263 order of the Pr. CIT is quashed, there is no scope for any modification or revision of the AO's original assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B.”

10 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited file with a direction to pass a fresh order after dealing with the specific grounds of appeal based on which the impugned order passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, dated 28/03/2025 has been assailed by the assessee appellant before him. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, in the course of the set aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company.

Order passed in the open court on 19th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA G.) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 19th June, 2026. **OKK / SPS Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Nipro Medical (India) Private Limited 2nd Floor, Gmr Aero Towers, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad -500409, Hyderabad, Telangana-500409. 2 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Room No.224, 2B, IT Towers, Masab Tank, AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004 3 The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad

11 ITA No.1783/Hyd/2025 and CO 16/Hyd/2026 ACIT vs. NIPRO Medical India Private Limited 4 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Digitally signed by KAMALA KAMALA KUMAR KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.06.19 12:09:09 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.