ACCUSTER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. WARD 1(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4157/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Accuster Technologies Pvt Ltd, the appellant, contesting an ex parte order by the ld. CIT(A) which rejected their claim under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 1,54,98,219 for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) did not consider the application submitted by the assessee to the Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for obtaining Form 3CM, which was never rejected. The assessee argued that they were under a bona fide belief that their application was valid and in order, and thus, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting their claim without further inquiries. The Departmental Representative did not object to the restoration of the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782739 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT KAPOOR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4157/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2018-19] Accuster Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs. The I.T.O 424, CMR Building, Ghitorni Ward – 1(1) New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCU 0629 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 21.04.2025 for A.Y 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4157/DEL/2025 Accuster Technologies [A.Y 2018-19] Page 2 of 4 2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 35(2AB) at Rs. 1,54,98,219/- is bad in law and against the facts of the case. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating that the assessee had duly submitted an application dated 12.06.2017, vide Ref. No. ACC/12- 1/2017, to the Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Technology Bhawan, for obtaining Form 3CM. The said application was never rejected by the DSIR, and therefore, the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause and was under the bona fide belief that the application was valid and in order. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that submission of application before DSIR dated 12.06.2017 along with \"Renewal Certificate\" dated 08.11.2017 was sufficient for claiming relief under section 35(2AB), and that there was no requirement to resubmit the same documents. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and, as such, instead of rejecting the claim of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not carrying out any enquiries u/s 250 before rejecting the claim of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4157/DEL/2025 Accuster Technologies [A.Y 2018-19] Page 3 of 4 assessee and, therefore, prayed for restoring the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR fairly conceded to the above prayer of the ld. counsel for the assessee and raised no serious objection. 5. After hearing both the sides and considering the above facts and circumstances, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 4157/DEL/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 29.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 29th OCTOBER, 2025. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4157/DEL/2025 Accuster Technologies [A.Y 2018-19] Page 4 of 4 VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "