PHARMACLE LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMTIED,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.8414/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

M/s. Pharmacle Laboratory Private Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Limited, Mumbai – 400 020 House No.190/J, Block No.107, 1st Floor, Vs. Jay Complex, Gandhibagh, Nagpur – 440 002 PAN:AAJCP0583D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

: Shri Akshay Duragkar, AR & Assessee by Ms. Himmani Duragkar, AR Respondent by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 30.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2026

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for

short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), relevant to Assessment

Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.

limitation for which a delay condonation application has been filed along with affidavit.

On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay by holding that there was

“sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the delay is

condoned.

ITA No.8414/Mum/2025 M/s. Pharmacle Laboratory Private Limited 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“) The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

2) The learned CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record.

3) The order passed by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT (Appeals) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

4) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT (Appeals) at Rs. 1,06,135/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive

5) The learned A.O. erred and was not justified in making addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.99,080/- in the hands of the assessee being share capital issued and balance of share capital of Rs.99,080/- as per Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2017.

6) The learned A.O. erred and was not justified in making addition of Rs.7,055/ being 20% of total expenses of Rs.35,275/ being claimed by the assessee.

7) The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

8) Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

dated 29.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.1,470/- and the same was processed u/s

143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and

notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The

assessee did not comply with the notices before the Learned Assessing Officer (“for short

“Ld. AO”) who then proceeded to pass the assessment order dated 11.12.2019 u/s 144

r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act being best judgment assessment thereby determining the total

income at Rs.1,07,605/- after making addition towards share capital and expenses claimed

by the assessee.

ITA No.8414/Mum/2025 M/s. Pharmacle Laboratory Private Limited 5. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide

order dated 25.08.2025 dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 169

days in filing the first appeal stating that the assessee has failed to substantiate that there

was ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay.

It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant during the assessment proceeding

and had also filed the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 169 days beyond

the period of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by

not condoning the delay on the ground that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that there

was “sufficient cause” for the delay and that the reason specified by the assessee that the

delay was due to Covid pandemic was also not justified by the assessee for the reason that

the due date of filing of the appeal was well before the Covid pandemic time.

assessee prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case

before the first appellate authority and had also brought our attention to the application

filed for delay condonation where the assessee claims that there was “sufficient cause” for

the delay in filing the first appeal. On perusal of the rival contentions, we deem it fit to

restore this issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) by extending the assessee with one

more opportunity to present its case by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in

the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the

ITA No.8414/Mum/2025 M/s. Pharmacle Laboratory Private Limited proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay from its side. Accordingly,

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated: 27.04.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai