SPA SOAPS & SURFACTANTS,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the period of delay, restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed not to raise the issue of delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for a delay of 207 days. The AO had framed the assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147 and made an addition of Rs. 20.31 Lacs in cash deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal dismissed in limine for delay should be restored for adjudication on merits, and whether the delay issue should be waived.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s SPA Soaps & Surfactants DCIT Circle-1(1), C/o Tejmohan Singh, Advocate Chandigarh - 160017 बनाम/ Vs. #527, Sector10-D Chandigarh 160011 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ABPFS-0097-M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR (virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27-11-2025 आदेश / O R D E R
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 08-08-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act on 09-05-2023. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit for Rs.20.31 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for want of condonation of delay of 207 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is adjudication of appeal on merits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee is able to substantiate its case on merits. The Ld. AR also raised pertinent legal grounds.
Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the period of delay, I am inclined to accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The issue of delay would not be raised by Ld. CIT(A).
The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th November, 2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026