KYORI OREMIN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dt. 23.09.2025 for the AY 2013-14 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and not condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before him, without appreciating that the appellant has reasonable cause for such delay in filing of the appeal.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and ought to have heard the appeal on the basis of merits rather than dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay is due to reasons which are beyond the control of the appellant.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds of appeal taken before him.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.24,30,83,272/ u/s 40(a) (i) of the Act towards the freight expenditure without appreciating that the expense incurred was part of regular conduct of business and it is wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose and allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act.

The AO erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.5,41,130/- towards Disallowance of foreign exchange loss on account of reinstatement without appreciating that the loan was taken for the purpose of business and the same should be allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal on technical reason of delay in filing the appeal which amounts to denial of justice to the appellant.

The Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal despite the reasons for delay explained by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). He has also filed an affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee and submitted that the company becomes non-functional and closed its business due to financial and other difficulties and therefore, the assessment order and other papers got misplaced by one of the office staff of the assessee company resulting the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). He has thus pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the same on merits. He has further

On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that the explanation of the assessee is very vague as the learned CIT(A) has pointed out in para no.2.4 of the impugned order that even the assessee has given incorrect details of facts in Form-35 and therefore, the assessee does not deserve any lenient view. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following Orders: (i) Ward-1(2), Hyderabad in ITA.No.665/Hyd./2025 dated 10.12.2025; (ii) Hyderabad in ITA.No.436/Hyd./2025 dated 30.01.2026;

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly after 42 days of delay. The assessee explained the cause of delay as reproduced by the learned CIT(A) in Para no.2.3 of the impugned order as under:

1. Thus, the assessee has explained that the assessment order dated 29.03.2016 could not be challenged in the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within limitation due to the reason that the papers were misplaced by one of the office staff and the same has not been brought to the notice of the management. In support of this contention, the assessee has also now filed the affidavit of the Managing Director of the company. We further note that the Assessing Officer has made the addition u/sec.40(a)(i) of the Act to the tune of Rs.24.30 crores which appears to be 100% of the freight; legal professional expenses and interest as details are given by the Assessing Officer in Para no.3 of the impugned order. Thus, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/sec.40(a)(i) without verifying the fact whether all the payments are made by the assessee to non-resident falling under the provisions of sec.40(a)(i) or sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act as it appears that in the computation of total income the Assessing Officer has referred the disallowance made u/sec.40(a)(ia). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice when the appeal of the 7 ITA.No.2037/Hyd./2025

2. Since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad - 500 081. Telangana. C/o. P. Murali & Co. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/1/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. PIN - 500 082. 2. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER