ESHIKSA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES P LTD.,JAIPUR V. ITO, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 46/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Eshiksa Technology Services P Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal by the CIT(A) due to a delay in filing, which the assessee argued was unintentional and due to the inexperience of its whole-time director with e-proceedings. The Income Tax Officer had earlier added a sum of ₹74,00,000 to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance and lack of evidence regarding the share capital raised. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present its case, provided the specified cost is paid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772234 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 46/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Eshiksa Technology Services P Ltd. (Now Nubizpay Services Private Limited) Vs. ITO, Jaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCF2595E Appearances: Assessee represented by : Prakash Dangayach, AR. Department represented by : Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 13-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 28-August-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 05.11.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine without condoning delay occurred in filing the appeal for which genuine reasons were extended to him. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 46/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Eshiksa Technology Services P Ltd. 2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1 the ld. CIT(A) has erred further in not deciding the issue in appeal on merits.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 07.11.2017 showing total income of ₹(-)45,94,816/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') for the reason of share premium. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee did not comply with any of the notices. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noticed that during the FY 2016-17, the assessee had raised share capital, both equity and preference, at the face value of ₹10/- along with premium amounting to ₹790/- per share totalling to ₹74,00,000/- from various parties. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to all the parties for compliance with the requisite details but none of the parties replied/filed submissions, hence a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 14.12.2019. The Ld. AO noted that in this case there was no compliance either from the end of the assessee company or from the end of the alleged subscriber companies and also found that the subscribing companies were not found existing at the addresses on record. Since the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction had not been proved, the Ld. AO added a sum of ₹74,00,000/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹74,00,000/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 05.11.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 46/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Eshiksa Technology Services P Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The assessee, despite being provided sufficient opportunities to file application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), did not present itself in the appellate proceedings and therefore, cannot agitate against violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted the submission of the assessee that “the appellant is a private limited company and it had furnished the e mail id of its whole time director on the portal of the income tax department for e proceedings etc. The whole time director is a layman not aware about intricacies and procedural aspects of income-tax assessment through e proceedings. Though the notices have been sent to the email id but since the director of the appellant company is not regular in checking the email id and hence was absolutely ignorant about the queries raised during assessment proceedings. As a result, the assessee was not able to submit replies to the notices issued by the ld. A O. Hence the ld. AO has passed the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and such order came to the notice of the appellant very recently and immediately thereafter the appeal has been prepared and submitted without any further delay. Due to this reason delay of 90 days took place in filing the appeal which may please be condoned in the interest of justice. It is further submitted that the asses see did not derive any benefit from delay in filing of appeal and hence such delay was never intentional and took place due to circumstances beyond then control, of the assessee. The non-condonation of delay by your honour will harm the assessee both mentally as well as financially very badly.” Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 46/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Eshiksa Technology Services P Ltd. It was therefore sincerely requested that the delay so occurred may be condoned and the appeal be allowed to be proceeded with. An affidavit in this respect was also filed which forms part of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He has examined the literature and the judicial pronouncements on the issue of condonation of delay and has held that “There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 57 days in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly I decline to condone the delay of 57 days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation.” In view of the above discussion, the appeal was rendered as inadmissible and dismissed. 6. The Ld. AR argued that there was delay before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned despite an affidavit being filed and there being a sufficient cause and requested that in the interest of justice, the delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal ought to have been decided on merits. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. However, the Bench was of the view that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta - 700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and produce the receipt of the same before the Ld. CIT(A). In case the assessee does not pay the above- mentioned cost of ₹50,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. Hence the grounds of appeal raised are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 46/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Eshiksa Technology Services P Ltd. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28.08.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 46/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Eshiksa Technology Services P Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Eshiksa Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Nubizpay Services Private Limited), Plot No. 60, Vishwamitra Nagar, Opp. Road No. 5, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302013. 2. ITO, Jaipur. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "