AKILA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,GREATER KAILASH PART I DELHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, ASSESSMENT UNIT -NFAC

PDF · subscribers
ITTPA 24/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal on the grounds of delay and the appeal being defective, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, it was expedient to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.09.2025. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed in this manner. The Tribunal did not decide on the substantive issues raised by the assessee regarding the applicability of sections and the merits of the AO's order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Akila Trading Private Limited, is in appeal against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Delhi-44. This order arose from the assessment order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Delhi-44, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to TP Risk Parameters, indicating substantial transactions with Associated Enterprises and a low profit margin relative to turnover. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made an adjustment of Rs. 1,66,86,322/-, which was added to the total income by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, particularly when it was alleged that Form 35 was incomplete and there was a delay in filing the appeal, despite the form being complete and filed without delay after receiving the AO's order, thus violating the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an order deeming the appeal defective without disposing of the issues and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee? 3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an order without considering that Sections 92CA and 144C(3)/144B were not applicable to the facts of the case? 4. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an order when the AO erred on facts and law by not examining the basic facts, rendering the order liable to be quashed? 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing the impugned order despite the assessment order being contrary to the provisions of law? Assessee's Contention: The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay and defectiveness without adjudicating the substantive issues, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. The assessee requested the matter be restored to the Ld. CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection to the submissions made by the assessee's representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 144C(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Hearing: 07.05.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

P a g e | 1 IT(TP)A No.24/Del/2025 Akila Trading Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 24/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) AKILA TRADING PRIVATE Vs. Assistant or Deputy LIMITED Commissioner of Income W 105 GREATER KAILASH Tax, Circle 10(1), New PART-I, Delhi-110002 NEW DELHI �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AADCA1336P Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. V.K.Tulsian, CA Respondent by : Sh. Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 07.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.05.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 29.09.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment

P a g e | 2 IT(TP)A No.24/Del/2025 Akila Trading Pvt. Ltd. order dated 31-01-2024 of the Addl./ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing 1(1), Delhi-44 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the case of assessee under CASS was selected on the ground that TP Risk Parameter and in wholesale or retail trade shown substantial transactions with Associated Enterprises and declared very low profit before interest and tax as compared to turnover. Ld. AO provided various opportunities of hearing hereunder:

P a g e | 3 IT(TP)A No.24/Del/2025 Akila Trading Pvt. Ltd. 3. As per the provisions of Section 92CA read with CBDT’s Instruction No. 03/2016 dated 10.03.2016, the case was referred to TPO for determination of the arm’s length price of the international transaction with the associated enterprise, with the prior approval of concerned PCIT. The TPO as per order dated 25.10.2023, made a total adjustment of Rs. 1,66,86,322/-. In response to show cause as to why adjustment of Rs. 1,66,86,322/- be not added in total income, the assessee submitted replies dated 06.09.2022 and 24.11.2023. On completion of the proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 31.01.2024 made an addition of Rs. 1,66,86,322/-. Against order dated 31.01.2024 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2024.

3.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:

“1. Whether the CIT-A (NFAC) is justify by passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity particularly when the it was alleged that form no 35 is incomplete as well as the delay in filling of appeal whereas form no 35 was complete in all angle and there was no delay in filing after receiving the A.O.order, therefore the order is against principal of natural justice. 2. Whether the CIT-A (NFAC) is justify by passing the order by saying being appeal is defective even without disposing of appeal on the issues raised and Grounds of appeal.

P a g e | 4 IT(TP)A No.24/Del/2025 Akila Trading Pvt. Ltd. 3. Whether the CIT-A (NFAC) is justify by passing the order without considering the sections as invoked 92CA, 144C-3/1448 which are not applicable to the facts of the matter. 4. Whether the CIT-A (NFAC) is justify by passing the order where as the AO has erred on the facts and law by not adhering/examined the basic facts therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. 5. Whether the CIT-A (NFAC) is justify by passing the impugned despite the facts that the Assessment order which is contrary to the provisions of law itself. The appellant craves to leave, amend, alter, modify any grounds of appeal at the time or before the hearing.” 4. Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant/ assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, by saying the appeal being defective, without disposing on the issues raised in the appeal in violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection to the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee.

6.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid arrival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29.09.2025 dismissed the appeal on ground of delay and appeal being defective in violation of natural justice. In view of the above material facts and in the interest of justice, it is considered expedient to set aside order dated 29.09.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh

P a g e | 5 IT(TP)A No.24/Del/2025 Akila Trading Pvt. Ltd. adjudication in accordance with the law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are allowed in above terms.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) (Vimal Kumar) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13.05.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →