CRYPTOPY TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE V. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(5)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1417/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by M/s. Cryptopy Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against separate orders passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The appeals were initially dismissed ex-parte due to non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to notices, attributed to a change in management and merger of the company. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the Supreme Court's judgment in MST Katiji, condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to remit the matter back to the AO, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773533 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVNEETH KINI

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1416, 1417/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19 M/s. Cryptopy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C/o. Quickr India Pvt. Ltd., Door No.167, SRK Nagar Post, No.106, Sub No.5 6, 7, 8 and 9, Rachenahalli, K. R. Puram Hobli Bangalore – 560 045. PAN : AAFCC 4031 P Vs. DCIT, Circle– 5(5)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Navneeth Kini, CA Revenue by : Shri. K. M. Mahesh,CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against separate Orders passed by CIT(A) order vide Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070359332(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070358367(1), both Orders dated 14.11.2024. 2. At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that the appeal filed for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is delayed by 144 days. In this regard, assessee has filed affidavit which is as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1416, 1417/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 3. On going through the explanation submitted by the learned Counsel and by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1987 (2) SC, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Both these appeals filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) against the Assessment Orders passed by the AO vide Order Nos.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1022448227(1) dated 16.12.2019 and ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032691992(1) dated 27.04.2021 respectively are ex-parte Orders for non-prosecution from the assessee’s side. The learned Counsel submitted that due to change of the management and merger of the company, Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1416, 1417/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 notice issued by the learned CIT(A) could not be noticed as the notices might have settled in the spam folder, therefore, notices issued by the learned CIT(A) could not be responded to. He requested and undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, assessee will substantiate with cogent materials. 5. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that several chances were given to the assessee but assessee did not respond. 6. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the Assessment Order passed by the AO and during the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued various notices but assessee did not comply with the notices. Accordingly, the CIT(A) passed Order on the basis of material available before him and dismissed appeal of the assessee. 7. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of the AO with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for each appeal. Assessee has to pay the cost and produce necessary evidence to the AO before taking up the case and decide the issue as per law. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. In case of failure no second leniency shall be granted.It is ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1416, 1417/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member- Bangalore. Dated: 25.09.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "