CARLSBERG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON, GURUGRAM

ITA 2935/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Carlsberg India Private Limited appealing against the order of the CIT(A) from NFAC, which had dismissed their earlier appeal concerning an order passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The dismissal was based on an erroneous claim that the appellant had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which the appellant contested. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the erroneous dismissal and the lack of adjudication on the merits, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716827 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANGEET BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K. AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; TDS; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 2935/Del/2025 Asstt. Year: 2013-14 CARLSBERG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VS. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE 4TH FLOOR, RECTANGEL NO. 1, GURUGRAM, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, HARYANA D-4, SAKET, NEW DELHI – 17 (PAN: AAJCS8454J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 02.12.2021 relating to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- “On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellant craves to prefer an appeal against order dated 2.12.2021 passed by the CIT(A) from NFAC, u/s. 250 of the Act in pursuance to the appeal filed against the order passed by the DCIT, TDS Circle, Gurgaon u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, on the grounds as set out herein:- 1. Ground 1 : Erroneous Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) from NFAC 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed on April 30, 2021 against the order passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, by erroneously Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e considering the matter is settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 1.2 The order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and deserve to be set aside and fair opportunity to be provided to appellant to present its case. 2. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. 3. It is noted that there is a delay of 1158 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is the contention of the Assessee that against the order passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) dated 31.03.2021, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide its order dated 2.12.2021 has dismissed the appeal exparte by wrongly stated that the appellant had opted for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, without adjudicating the merits of the case, however, the appellant never opted for VSVS Scheme. On this wrong finding of the CIT(A), assessee again filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 20.1.2022 explaining the erroneous dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) alongwith the condonation of delay application. However, vide order dated 28.2.2025 by the CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-3 Bengaluru for AY 2014-15 (i.e. on the same facts of AY 2013-14) the appellant learnt that relief shall not be provided by the CIT(A) despite the fact that the appellant had not opted for DTVSV and appeal was dismissed. Accordingly, the appellant filed the by the assessee before the Tribunal is beyond the limitation period. In view of the factual matrix, I am fully satisfied that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in dispute and remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with the Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e directions to decide the same afresh, on merits of the case by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20.08.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT Date:20.08.2025 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "