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

ITA 3803/DEL/2024

AI Insights

Sarkun Solar Private Limited filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed their appeal in limine for the assessment year 2012-13, citing a delay in filing. The assessee contended that the appeal was dismissed ex parte and that the demand notice under section 156 was never served, making the assessment order itself barred by limitation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the lack of opportunity to explain the delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773732 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

"ITANo.3803/Del/2024 SARKUN SOLAR PVT. LTD. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 3803/Del/2024 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 SARKUN SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED, 8th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. PAN No.AABCU7366H बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward-22(3), NFAC, CIT APPEAL, Delhi. अपीलाथ\u0014 Appellant \u0016\u0017यथ\u0014/Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक\bतारीख/ Date of hearing: 18.08.2025 उ\u000eोषणाक\bतारीख/Pronouncement on 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITANo.3803/Del/2024 SARKUN SOLAR PVT. LTD. 2 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITANo.3803/Del/2024 SARKUN SOLAR PVT. LTD. 3 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 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.09.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com ITANo.3803/Del/2024 SARKUN SOLAR PVT. LTD. 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "