BALKAN CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. ITO 1(1) KALYAN, MOHAN PLAZA

ITA 6504/Mum/2025 (AY 2013-14) Balkan Chemicals Private Limited there was no communication from either through ITBA portal or from office of ld. CIT(A) or NFAC, the assessee approached jurisdictional assessing officer with the request to expedite the matter and filed application dated 26.09.2025. In response to such letter, the jurisdictional assessing officer handed over order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee immediately filed present appeal on 06.10.2025. Thus, order of dismissal of appeal by ld. CITA) was communicated to assessee for the first time only on 26.09.2025. From the date of communication, there is no delay. Yet for abundant caution in explaining the fact, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The assessee in Form-36 has mentioned the date of communication as of 26.09.2025. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that neither there was a delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit. The assessing officer also passed the assessment order for the want of certain compliance, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of assessing officer for passing the assessment order afresh. He undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance.

DR) for the Revenue submits that there was delay that is inordinate delay in filing appeal before First Appellate Authority as well as delay before Tribunal. The assessee has not explained the delay, thus, delay may not be condoned and appeal may be dismissed as unadmitted.

ITA 6504/Mum/2025 (AY 2013-14) Balkan Chemicals Private Limited

Thus, the appeal in first round was filed in time. As such appeal was filed physically, it was dismissed for technical reason with the direction to file appeal electronically. Such order was passed on 03.05.2018, copy of which is also available on record. As the order was passed on 03.05.2018, certainly it may have been communicated / sent by way of registered post or by hand. The assessee by the end of the same month filed appeal electronically on 31.05.2018. Such fact is clearly acknowledged by ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 17.04.2024. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal by taking view that explanation of delay is not satisfactory. The ld. CIT(A) has not recorded as to what explanation was offered. He has not recorded whether any show cause notice was issued or not. Once, appeal was rejected, the grounds of appeal on merit was also summarily rejected. Considering the fact that physical appeal was dismissed on 03.05.2018 and appeal in electronic view was filed on 03.05.2018, in our considered view, there was no delay and even in case there was delay the conduct of assessee shows that there is no deliberated action of assessee which may be considered as negligent act of assessee. Thus, even if any such small delay, is condoned. So far as, further, delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, the assessee in Form

36. (before Tribunal) has clearly mentioned that ITA 6504/Mum/2025 (AY 2013-14) Balkan Chemicals Private Limited impugned order was communicated on 26.09.2025. To support his view, the assessee filed affidavit of one of the director of assessee company wherein it has been specifically mentioned that physical copy of order passed by ld. CIT(A) on 27.04.2024 was communicated by assessing officer in response to their latter dated 26.09.2025. Thus, from the date of communication, we find that appeal is within time. No rebuttal to such affidavit is given by Revenue except objecting the prayer of assessee. Even otherwise the registry of this Tribunal has not raised objection about the delay. Thus, in our view, there is no delay in filing appeal even if it is considered that there is delay, such delay is duly explained, which we accept as reasonable. Therefore, delay in filing appeal otherwise is condoned.

5. On merit, we find that assessing officer made addition on account of unexplained credit and unexplained investment under section 68 & 69 respectively. The additions were made for the want of evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of lender. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that assessee is ready to discharge their onus to prove all three ingredients of section 68 and necessary discharge against additions under section 69.

Considering the fact that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without considering the merit, the assessing officer made addition for the want of sufficient evidence, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of jurisdictional assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the ITA 6504/Mum/2025 (AY 2013-14) Balkan Chemicals Private Limited order afresh, the ld. AO shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in timely. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.