TALCO DINDIGUL TANNERSENVIRO CONTROL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT, NCC-2,, MADURAI

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 185 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the delay has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee as the assessee did not receive the communication of the appellate order by email/post. The assessee became aware of the appellate order passed by the first appellate authority after receipt of penalty order on 13.03.2026 by email. Further, the ld.AR stated that unfortunately, the Managing Director who was actively involved in the affairs of the company and was the principal decision-maker in relation to its financial and tax matters, was passed away on 20.04.2026 and his sudden demise caused significant disruption to the company’s management and administrative functioning. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, engaged in treatment of Effluent generated by the tanning industry in and around the town of Dindigul in Tamil Nadu and did not file its return of income for AY 2020-21. Based on the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee carried out various financial transactions for the year under consideration. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.02.2024 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 on 06.05.2024, declaring a loss of Rs.67,43,990/-. Subsequently, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee has submitted

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 07.04.2025.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 6.1 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee has submitted written submission along with supporting documents for consideration. On perusal of the documentary evidence, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not provide complete documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for verification and hence the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by passing an order dated 08.09.2025 by confirming the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order as mandated by section 250(6) of the Act. While reproducing the assessee’s submissions, the ld.CIT(A) has not recorded any independent findings dealing with the issues raised, the statutory provisions relied upon, or the judicial precedents cited by the assessee. Further, the ld.AR argued that in particular, the ld.CIT(A) failed to note that the assessee had provided all the details sought for without any exception along with Books of Accounts so that rejection of books of accounts without assigning any reasons was per se

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has already been given sufficient opportunity and there is no error in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the information available with the department and partly submission made by the assessee and on appeal the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC without considering the submissions/documents made by the assessee.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one further opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to consider the submissions made by the assessee. The JAO is directed to examine the audited books of accounts and relevant supporting documents furnished by the assessee in support of the claim made in the return of income filed on 06.05.2024 and thereafter decide the issues on merits as per the audited books of accounts in accordance with law after due verification. The assessee is directed to provide all necessary details and supporting evidence before the JAO, without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

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