PISM LOGISTICS PRIVATE LTD. ,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SATNA

I.T.A. No.4/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4/JAB/2025 Assessment year:2020-21 PISM Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 MIG-19, Bandhavgarh Colony, Civil Lines, Satna, Madhya Sabhaganj B.O, Gandhi Nagar, Pradesh-485001. Satna-485001. PAN:AAKCM1889J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None (adjournment application filed) Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr.D.R-1 O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.4/JBP/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2020-21 against impugned appellate order dated 07/11/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070187729(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company registered as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act’, for short) and derives its income from sale of coal and transportation of fly ash. The CPC processed the return filed by the assessee and in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer (“AO”) has raised a demand of Rs.12,62,920/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 07/11/2024, the assessee’s appeal was

I.T.A. No.4/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 2 dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on the ground of limitation and did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. (C) The appellant-assessee has contended in para 6 of the appeal that the impugned appellate order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. Further, in ground nos. 5 and 7 of the appeal, the assessee has also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. (C.1) At the time of hearing, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned D.R. for Revenue was heard and the materials on record were perused. On perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the ground on which the assessee had sought condonation of delay in filing of the appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). It is also found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed why the reasons contended by the assessee for condonation of delay were not found acceptable. Moreover, from perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is not clear whether sufficient opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT(A) before dismissing the assessee’s appeal. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside with a direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, if the Ld. CIT(A) decides to condone the delay in filing of appeal for office of the Ld. CIT(A), then he is further directed to decide the assessee’s appeal on merits, on the various grounds of appeal in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid.

I.T.A. No.4/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 3 (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 12/02/2026)

Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated: 12/02/2026 Vijay Pal Singh (Sr. PS) Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Jabalpur