SARKUN SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 22(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3803/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 September 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the appeal was dismissed ex parte due to a delay in filing. Considering the facts, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A)-NFAC which dismissed the appeal in limne due to a delay in filing. The assessee contended that no opportunity was given to explain the delay and that the demand notice was never served.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was rightly dismissed by the CIT(A) in limne due to delay, without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 37,Section 32,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.08.2025

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi dated 23.08.2024 for the AY 2012-13 in dismissing the appeal in limne. In spite of issue of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was ITANo.3803/Del/2024 SARKUN SOLAR PVT. LTD. moved. Thus, this appeal is disposed of on hearing the Ld. DR. The assessee in its appeal raised the following grounds:

1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT Appeal has erred in law and facts of the case in passing order u/s 250 in impulsive and imperious manner thereby confirming demand of Rs.30,06,071/- with total lack of application of mind.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at income of Rs.79,1 l,044/- and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax, surcharge and interest thereon.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs.74,10,868/- on account of “Business Promotion Expenses” under Section 37 and Rs. 31,42,324/- on account of “Depreciation” under Section 32 of Income tax act, 1961.

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT has erred in law and facts of the case in making aggregate addition of Rs.1,05,53,192/- without considering the submissions of the assessee and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.

5.

The Appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are prejudice to each other.”

2.

On perusal of the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, we observed that the appeal was dismissed observing that there is ITANo.3803/Del/2024 SARKUN SOLAR PVT. LTD. a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. In the grounds of appeal the assessee contended that appeal was dismissed in limne ex parte holding that it is barred by limitation and no opportunity was provided to explain the delay. Assessee also contended that the demand notice u/s 156 was never served on the assessee and therefore the assessment order itself is barred by limitation. Taking the totality of facts into consideration, we are of the view that in the interest of justice this matter should go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay if any. Accordingly this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the above observation.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2025

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →