ISDEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MILKHIRAM MARKET, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

Ground 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order without a Hording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, thereby violating the Principles of Natural Justice.

Ground 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and not on merits, without granting the Appellant an opportunity to explain the reasons for such delay and without taking cognizance of the evidences and documents submitted in support of the application for condonation of delay, thereby rendering the dismissal of appeal unjustified and unsustainable.

Ground 4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not stating the premise on which the reasons given by Appellant were considered untenable, thereby resulting in a non-speaking and arbitrary order.

Ground 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred by stating that delay in filing of appeal is approx. 7 years, however, the actual delay is approx. 7 months which is evident as per records and the Appellant had filed the application for condonation of delay along with supporting documents

Ground 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the mere technical ground of delay in filing, without appreciating the well-settled principle that no lax can be collected without the authority of law The rejection of the appeal on such a procedural basis effectively results in the collection of tax without legal sanction, which is in clear violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India making such retention illegal and unconstitutional”

Brief facts of the case as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in Form No. 35 are that the ISDEC India Private Limited (‘Appellant’), bearing PAN No. AAACI5232R, is a company incorporated on 11 February 1976. The assessee had filed its Return of Income (‘ROI’) for the AY 2023-24 on 15 September 2023 declaring total income of Rs. 2,77,59,840 under normal provision of the Act and corresponding tax liability of Rs. 77,22,787/- vis-à-vis total income of Rs. 1,89,73,438/- declared under the provision of MAT and corresponding tax liability of Rs. 31,67,046/- I.T.A. No.: 730/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ISDEC India Private Limited. . As the tax liability as per the normal provision of the Act was higher, hence the assessee paid taxes under the normal provision of the Act. The said tax liability of Rs.77,25,949/- (including interest of Rs.3,162/- under Section 234C of the Act) was then discharged by way of advance tax of Rs.15,00,000/-, TDS of Rs.75,33,436/- and TCS of Rs.6,800/-, and the assessee claimed refund of Rs.13,14,290/-.The said ROI was processed by the CPC, Bangalore (‘the Ld. AO’) under section 143(1) of the Act on 21 May 2024 wherein refund of Rs.10,40,409/- (as against Rs.13,14,290/- as claimed in ROI) was determined due to short grant of TDS credit to the tune of Rs.2,69,033/- and consequential interest under section 234C of the Act. The above short grant of TDS of Rs.2,69,033/- was determined by virtue of Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of variation in receipts as per Form No. 26AS and as shown in the return of income. While preparing the said reconciliation, the assessee noted that it had inadvertently considered the cash withdrawal of Rs.26,98,000/- as ‘income from other source’ in the ROI and accordingly paid taxes on the same for which additional ground of appeal was raised. Aggrieved with the intimation received, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.03.2025 dismissed the appeal on account of delay and the relevant finding is extracted as under: “Decision on Condonation of Delay:- The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. It is noticed that there is a delay in filing of appeal. The appeal is to be filed within 30 days of the date of the service of the order. During the appellate proceedings, it is found from the Form No. 35 that the appellant filed the present appeal on 26.01.2025 whereas the date of order u/s 143(1) was on 21.05.2024 and as per Form No. 35, the date of service of order was 21.05.2024. As per the dates given in Form 35, it appears that the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed due date. The reasons stated by the appellant have been perused but are not found to be tenable as the appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or any other hardship I.T.A. No.: 730/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ISDEC India Private Limited. for delay in filing of the present appeal (delay in filing of appeal approx. 7 years) and hence, the same cannot be condoned. The above view has also been taken by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai [2023] 153 taxmann.com 354 (Madras) in a recent decision. Thus, the appeal filed by appellant is not maintainable as the same is filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s 249 of the IT Act for filing of appeal and there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, which can be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed u/s. 250 r.w.s.251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed.

In the end, the present appeal is dismissed.”

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The appeal was decided primarily on account of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been mentioned as delay of 7 years while as per the assessee the same is of 7 months only, which prima facie appears to be correct. The reasons for delay were mentioned as under: “In addition to the above, the Appellant would like to humbly state before your goodself that the captioned appeal is being filed with your goodself after delay of approx. 219 days due to the following bonafide reasons beyond the control of the Appellant: • Turmoil due to the ex-auditor of the Appellant - The Appellant submits that M/s JSGA & Associates served as its statutory auditor until FY 2022-23. However, due to legal proceedings against them in FY 2023-24, they were unable to manage the Appellant’s affairs and resigned effective August 1, 2024. As the auditor handled the Appellant’s income tax matters, their inability to address the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act resulted in it going unnoticed. • Resignation of Existing Accountant – The Appellant’s accountant resigned unexpectedly due to personal reasons in March 2024. • Appointment of New Accountant – The Appellant faced delays in hiring a qualified replacement. After a thorough search, Mr. Kamal Deep joined in June 2024 (offer letter enclosed as Annexre). Due to the lack of a proper handover, he faced difficulties in understanding the Appellant’s financial records. • Change of Statutory Auditor – A new auditor was appointed w.e.f. April 1, 2024, adding complexity to the transition. Mr. Kamal Deep had to coordinate with the audit team while familiarizing himself with financial records, increasing his workload. I.T.A. No.: 730/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ISDEC India Private Limited. • Medical Condition of Mr. Kamal Deep – In October 2024, Mr. Kamal Deep was diagnosed with dengue fever, leading to work backlog. Due to the above bonafide reasons which were beyond the control of the Appellant, there has been unintentional delay in filing the appeal with your goodself. Detailed condonation application has been annexed with the appeal documents for your goodself.”

The Bench noted that the Ld. CIT(A) are dismissed the appeal primarily on account of delay, which is stated to be 7 years by him, but was of around 7 months as per the assessee. The assessee had given ample reasons and there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay and the denial of condonation of delay was not justified. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient cause and deem it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play that another opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to represent his case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th July, 2025. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 24.07.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 730/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ISDEC India Private Limited. Copy of the order forwarded to:

ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Jaipur.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order