TORSA MACHINES LIMITED,GUWAHATI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 97/GTY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Torsa Machines Limited, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed their appeal due to an alleged delay in filing. The original assessment order by the AO added Rs. 30,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained share application money. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, citing a delay of 180 days in filing the appeal. However, the assessee argued that the appeal was filed within the statutory period of 30 days from the receipt of the assessment order, which they received via speed post. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting the lack of real-time alerts and the procedural missteps that led to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716964 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Premium Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 97/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Torsa Machines Limited, 1, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Amingaon, Guwahati - 781031 [PAN: AABCT4889Q] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati, Assam - 781005 ...…..…................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Ramesh Goenka, Advocate Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.08.2025 ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present appeal emanates from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.02.2025. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has passed an order dated 25.03.2022 through which an addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been made under Section 68 of the Act. It is seen that the Ld. AO passed an exparte order since there was no compliance by the assessee before him. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 97/GTY/2025 Torsa Machines Ltd. 2 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the CIT(A), where also he could not succeed because allegedly the appeal was filed with a delay of 180 days. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded in the impugned order that such delay could not be condoned as it was not explained with any cogent reasons. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine. 1.2 The assessee has approached the ITAT against the impugned order with the following grounds: “1. That the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in 1 filing the same, whereas the appeal was filed on 22.10.2022, ie within the prescribed time limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order, ie. 04.10.2022. 2. That the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC while passing the impugned order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.02.2025, did not consider the fact that adjournment had been sought by the appellant upto 23.02.2025, and in doing so denied the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and violated the principles of natural justice. 3. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred on facts as well as in law in not passing a speaking order dealing with the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant as well as without considering the statement of facts submitted with the appeal, and in doing so violated the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, neither the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of unexplained share application money to the Total Income of the appellant U/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, nor the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in not adjudicating the same ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- pertained to the AY 2012-13 and not A.Y. 2013-14. 5. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, neither the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 7,78,47,097/- to the Total Income of the appellant U/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, nor the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in not adjudicating the same ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs. 7,78,47,097 pertained to the earlier A.Ys, the details of which were mentioned in the Statement of Facts submitted with the appeal. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, 6 supplement, re-frame or alter any of the ground/s of appeal stated above on or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Right at the outset, the Ld. AR pleaded that the appeal was filed Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 97/GTY/2025 Torsa Machines Ltd. 3 within time before the Ld. CIT(A) and such time was calculated from the date of receipt of the Ld. AO's order. To this extent, the Ld. AR has relied on written submissions as under: “1. That the instant appeal has been filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC dated 22.02.2025, who has dismissed the appeal \"in limine\", without going into the merits of the case, due to mere ostensible delay in filing the appeal, when in fact, there was no such delay. 2. That during the course of assessment proceedings, no real time alert, as prescribed by the provisions of Section 144B(7)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') was sent to the petitioner assessee. Therefore, the petitioner assessee did not have any knowledge of the Notices issued to in relation to the assessment proceedings, and consequently, could not respond to the same. Similarly, no real time alert was sent to the petitioner assessee in relation to the assessment order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 25.03.2022, That in this regard, your kind attention is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Premium Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T. in W.P.(C) No. 5650 of 2023 dated 02.05.2023 wherein it has been held that, where no real time alert was issued to the assessee, the Notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act and the Order issued U/s. 148A(d) of the Act was to be set aside. 3. Nevertheless, it was only when the assessment order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 25.03.2022. was received by the petitioner assessee by way of Speed Post bearing Consignment No. ES939249354IN, on 30.09.2022, at 5:18 pm and came to the knowledge of the management on 04.10.2022 (1st and 2nd October, 2022 being weekends). that the petitioner assessee came to know about the passing of the assessment order dated 25.03.2022. Copy of Speed Post Envelope bearing Consignment No. ES939249354IN despatched by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Guwahati, i.e. the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and received by the petitioner assessee on 30.09.2022, alongwith the Tracking Page of Consignment No. ES939249354IN downloaded from the website of India Post, evidencing the receipt of the said Speed Post by the petitioner assessee on 30.09.2022, is enclosed herewith for your ready reference. 4. That on service of the aforesaid assessment order dated 25.03.2022 vide Speed Post on 04.10.2022, the petitioner assessee took immediate steps and filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC on 22.10.2022, well within the statutory period of 30 days from date of service of Notice of Demand alongwith the Assessment Order dated 25.03.2022. 5. Therefore, there was no delay in filing of appeal before the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC on the part of the petitioner assessee, and the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the same.” Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 97/GTY/2025 Torsa Machines Ltd. 4 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 3. We have carefully considered the arguments of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. It is clear that the assessee had a good reason for expecting that the Ld. CIT(A) would condone the alleged delay before him. Accordingly, following the reasons advanced through the written submissions (supra), we hereby condone the delay and thereafter set aside the impugned order. The Ld. AR has requested that in the interests of justice, this matter should be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO so that the factual issues could be thrashed out at that level. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after affording an opportunity of being heard. 4. In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21.08.2025 Sd/- Sd/- [Manomohan Das] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21.08.2025 AK, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 97/GTY/2025 Torsa Machines Ltd. 5 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "