SAURAV BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

ITA 3286/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Saurav Beverage Private Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was initially delayed due to internal restructuring and staff changes within the assessee's company, which the ITAT found to be a reasonable cause for the delay. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not responded to the notices from the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision, but emphasized the importance of justice and fair hearing, thus remanding the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826621 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHANI SHARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.3286/Del/2025 Saurav Beverages Vs. ITO Page | 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3286/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Saurav Beverage Private Limited, A-8/1, G.T. Road, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 PAN- AAOCS3617G vs Income Tax Officer, C. R. Building, Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Mr. Shani Sharma, CA Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR Date of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.01.2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10047822 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [“the Act”] arising out of the reassessment order dated 25.03.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. This appeal was filed delayed by 413 by the assessee for which an application for condonation of delay is filed alongwith an affidavit of the director of the assessee company reaffirming the facts stated in the application. It is stated that the order of Learned CIT(A) was not received in time, and the same was traced and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3286/Del/2025 Saurav Beverages Vs. ITO Page | 2 obtained only after persistent follow-up with the Department. It is further stated that the assessee underwent internal restructuring and staff changes, causing procedural delays in collating records. It is further stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but purely due to the above unavoidable circumstances. It is thus requested that delay being bonafide, deserves to be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication. 3. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the arguments of both the parties, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 413 days. In our considered opinion delay in filing the appeal is due to circumstances beyond the control of assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapses of the litigant concerned, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits. 5. Heard both parties. A perusal of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has provided only two opportunities to the assessee and when the assessee had failed to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3286/Del/2025 Saurav Beverages Vs. ITO Page | 3 respond, it was in this backdrop, ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose-off the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte sustaining the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders. It is true that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents to support its claim however, for this fact it was not deprived from the justice. 5.1 Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make any representation before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition/ disallowance due to non-persuasion, thus in the larger interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restored the same back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With these directions ground of appeal No. 4 raised by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Since we have already remanded back the appeal of the assessee to ld. CIT(A), the other grounds of appeal are not adjudicated. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 07.01.2026 *PK, Sr. P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3286/Del/2025 Saurav Beverages Vs. ITO Page | 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "