KINGSPAN INSULATION PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR-7, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2903/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 October 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the appeal as belated. Upon reviewing Form No. 35, it was evident that the assessee had filed the appeal on 20.01.2018. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had selected an inapplicable section in the initial filing. However, considering the facts and circumstances, and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the set-aside proceedings. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The grounds of appeal were considered for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kingspan Insulation Pvt Ltd, engaged in manufacturing insulated panel ducts, filed its return for Assessment Year 2015-16 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee claimed a foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs. 1,20,79,854/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this loss, considering it notional as actual payment had not been made, and brought it to tax under Section 37(1), assessing total income at (-) Rs. 2,73,52,283/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 420 days. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was belated, thereby justifying its dismissal in limine, turning on the interpretation of the filing date and the nature of the initial filing error. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the initial appeal was filed on 20.01.2018, within the stipulated time. It was submitted that a mistake was made in selecting the wrong section (Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 143(3)) in the initial Form No. 35. Upon discovery of this error, the assessee withdrew the first appeal and filed a fresh appeal on 14.03.2019. Therefore, there was no delay, and the matter should be remitted to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee relied on the specific references to Form No. 35 in the paper book. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) but did not raise strong objections to the assessee's request for remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1),Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणेपीठ�, पुणे INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2903/PUN/2026 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2015-16) KINGSPAN INSULATION PVT LTD DCIT, CIRCLE-7 626 NEW GURUWAR PETH NEAR ITO , BODHI TOWERS GANJ PETH POLICE CHOWKEY PUNE-411037, MAHARASHTRA Vs. NEW GURUWAR PETH, PUNE- 411042, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAFCP7008K अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Sharad A Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Uodol Raj Singh सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.10.2026 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 12.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assesseeagainst the order of Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Delhi dated 27th April 2026 emanating out of Assessment Order dated 20.12.2017 in relation to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged in the business of Manufacturing of insulated panel ducts used in installation of centralized air conditioning system. Assessee has e-fled the return of income on 30.11.2025 declaring Nil income. Case selected for scrutiny as per CBDT Circular and CASS, followed by serving of statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with a detailed questionnaire. Assessee has furnished the replies from time to time giving the requisite details claiming loss on foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.1,20,79,854/-. On being not satisfied with the explanation furnished by

ITA 2903/PUN/2026 KINGSPAN INSULATION PVT LTD the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not made actual payment is the loss is merely notional, thereby invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act brought to tax the said loss, assessed the income at (-) 2,73,52,283/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld. First Appellate Authority but with delay of 420 days, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Now the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find in the instant case assessee has claimed loss on foreign exchange fluctuation loss and ld. Assessing Officer could not find favour in the explanation furnished by the assessee. Assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but filed the appeal belatedly by 420 days. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to paper book running into 50 pages with specific reference to Form No.35 placed at pages 5 and 6 submitted that the assessee has initially filed appeal on 20.01.2018 which is well within the stipulated time limit. However, there is a mistake in selection of correct section, i.e. instead of section 143(3) assessee has wrongly selected section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Upon being pointed out the above mistake by ld.CIT(A), the assessee chose to withdraw the appeal and filed fresh appeal along with Form No.35 on14.03.2019. Therefore, since there is no delay, the matter may kindly be remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue on merits. Ld. DR has merely relied on the order of ld.CIT(A) however has not raised strong objection to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. 6. On going through the Form No.35, placed at pages 5 and 6, it is evident that the assessee has filed the appeal on 20.01.2018. Further, it is also evident that assessee has selected inapplicable section while filing the same. We therefore hold that ld.CIT(A) was not right in holding that the appeal before him as belated. Under these facts and circumstances and

ITA 2903/PUN/2026 KINGSPAN INSULATION PVT LTD without dwelling upon the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits of the case. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in such set aside proceedings. Impugned order is set aside and grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 12th October, 2026 Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.10.13 11:29:39 +05'30' Copy to: KINGSPAN INSULATION PVT LTD, 626 NEW GURUWAR PETH NEAR GANJ PETH POLICE CHOWKEY NEW GURUWAR 1 PETH,PUNE-411042, MAHARASHTRA DCIT CIR-7, 2 ITO , BODHI TOWERS, PUNE-411037, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, PUNEBENCH 5 GUARD FILE आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →