NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH

BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

ITA No. 258/Coch/2025 (Assessment Years: 2012–13) Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, SBT Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [PAN:AABCK1582H] vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

Appellant by: Shri. Gopi K,CA Respondent by Shri. Suresh Sivanandan, CIT ,DR & Smt . Leena Lal, Snr,AR

ITA No. 268/Coch/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013–14) Nitta Gelatin India Limited, ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, SBT Avenue Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [PAN:AABCK1582H] vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

Appellant by: Shri. Radhesh Bhatt, CA Respondent by Shri. Sundarasan S, CIT DR

Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.06.2025

2 ITA No. 258 & 268/Coch/2025 Nitta Gelatin India Limited

O R D E R Per: Sonjoy Sarma, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Centre, Delhi, both dated 26.06.2023, for the assessment years 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. Since the issues involved are common and the assessee is the same in both appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In ITA No. 258/Coch/2025, there is a delay of 581 days in filing the appeal, and in ITA No. 268/Coch/2025, the delay is 592 days. The assessee has filed separate applications for condonation of delay, citing reasonable causes. After going through the applications and considering the circumstances, we find the cause for delay to be bona fide and therefore condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss as declared. 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deducted expenditure of Rs.5,12,40,763 incurred during the trial production period, which was capitalized in the books but claimed as

3 ITA No. 258 & 268/Coch/2025 Nitta Gelatin India Limited

revenue expenditure. There was also a finance income of Rs.54,70,372 reflected in the 26AS statement but not offered to tax. 5. On this basis, the AO formed a belief that income had escaped assessment and reopened the case under Section 147. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and reassessment proceedings followed. Despite multiple notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), the AO was not satisfied with the assessee’s submissions and completed the reassessment with adverse findings. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) passed an exparte order. 7 Aggrieved by the above order the assessee filed an appeal befoer this Tribunal stating that since the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order, thereore, another opportunity may be given so that the assessee can substantiate his claim before the remand authority to prove its case. 8. On the other hand the the ld. CIT-DR did not object to such prayer made by the assessee if the matter remanded to the CIT(A) for further adjudication. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that since the order passed by the CIT(A) is an exparte order and the assessee did ot get an opportunity to substantiate its claim, therefore, it is necessary to remand the whole issue to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to reexamine the

4 ITA No. 258 & 268/Coch/2025 Nitta Gelatin India Limited

issue afresh after afforing and opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In termes of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 268/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2013–14 11. The facts and issues are similar in nature in this appeal, and this appeal too was dismissed by the CIT(A) exparte, due to non- compliance by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 12. The learned AR submitted that in the pressent appeal, the CIT(A) passed the orders exparte, without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case. It is prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The learned CIT-DR did not object to the said prayer but requested that the assessee be directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) when notices will be issued. 13. We, after considering the submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that: the orders of the ld. CIT(A) was passed exparte, due to the absence of the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). 14. Accodingly, the instant appeal is also remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

5 ITA No. 258 & 268/Coch/2025 Nitta Gelatin India Limited

Cochin, Dated: 5th June, 2025 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin