VARDHMAN INTERNATIONAL,PANIPAT V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

ITA 5772/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vardhman International, which filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeals were initially delayed, and the assessee contended that they were unaware of the final orders due to them being passed ex-parte. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case for the Assessment Year 2017-18, decided to remand the issue back to the A.O. for a fresh assessment, acknowledging the complexities involved with the assessee's export business and the administrative errors in PAN usage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833964 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 5771 & 5772/Del/2025 Vardhman International IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5771/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No. 5772/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vardhman International 1117-B, Bishan Sarup Colony, Panipat, Haryana PAN: AAEFV0015G V s Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Nem Chand Jain, Assessee Revenue by Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 04/02/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 21/01/2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 171 days in filing the captioned Appeals. The Assessee filed an application coupled with an affidavit of the Director contending that the orders impugned have been passed ex-parte and the Assessee was not aware of passing of the final orders by the Ld. CIT(A) and Assessee filed the captioned Appeals. Immediately on receipt of the information regarding passing of the orders impugned, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal seeking condonation of the delay in filing the Appeals. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 5771 & 5772/Del/2025 Vardhman International 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeals on delay in latches. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 171 days in filing the present Appeals. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee fairly submitted that the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 5726/Del/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, on an identical set of facts, restored the issue to the file of the A.O. for framing the de-novo assessment. Thus, sought for remanding the issue involved in the present Appeals to the file of A.O. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities and sought for dismissal of the Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 5771 & 5772/Del/2025 Vardhman International 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2017-18 remanded the identical issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication in following manners:- “3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and did not file its return of income for the AY 2017-18. On the basis of information available, it was seen that the appellant had goods exported amounting to Rs. 3,67,05,245/-. To verify the same, the case was reopened and notice u/s. 148 dated 28.07.2022 was issued after obtaining prior approval. During the assessment proceedings, the AO added Rs. 29,36,420/- being 8% of income from sale of goods by passing an exparte order dated 10.05.2023 u./s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act due to non- prosecution on the part of the assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) wherein, Ld. CIT(A) observed that since assessee remained silent on the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, he upheld the action of the AO. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I note that both the lower authorities have passed their respective exparte orders, after giving sufficient opportunities to the assessee, to canvass its case. I further note that in response to show notice issued, assessee furnished reply stating that the operations of the firm came to an end from the FY 2009-10 and the turnover is reflected in the proprietory concern of one of the partner Sh. Sanjay Jain and requested to grant time to furnish the information. Accordingly, time was granted upto 5.5.2023 vide notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.4.2023. However, the assessee has not furnished any information in support of its contention. In view of the above, the assessment is completed based on the information available on record. Accordingly, AO noted that as per the information available on record, assessee has exported goods amounting to Rs. 3,67,05,245/- during the year. The assessee has not filed return of income any details with regard to export of goods. Hence, 8% of income from the sale of goods Rs. 3,67,05,245/- amounting to Rs. 29,36,420/- is treated as income from business or professional and brought to tax. It was the contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee namely Shri Nem Chand Jain being partner of Vardhman International Panipat having PAN No. AAEFV0015G, became partner of said firm in FY 2006-07 by executing a partnership deed with erstwhile proprietor Mr Sanjay Jain of Vardhman International Panipat (proprietorship firm formed in 2002) and got new PAN No. of partnership firm immediately and later on in FY 2009-10 and the said partnership was dissolved and only Sanjay Jain was left as proprietor and he continued to work under proprietorship firm in the same name Vardhman International Panipat at the same place. Mr Sanjay Jain is the real brother of the assessee. Their partnership firm and also proprietorship firm used to do 100% export business of textile goods. It was further submitted that problem took place when proprietorship firm's CHA (custom house clearing agent) quoted PAN number of partnership firm Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 5771 & 5772/Del/2025 Vardhman International in shipments made between entire AY 2017-18. All export sales stand accounted for in proprietorship firm having PAN No. ABIPJ4872A, being PAN no of Sanjay Jain and said proprietorship firm is duly assessed in Income Tax. It was further submitted that assessment orders of relevant AY of proprietorship firm Vardhman International and also filed showing a statement incorporating all details like invoice no, date of invoice, amount of invoice in USD. Our CHA remained the same since 2002 till it got converted into partnership and further dissolved & became proprietorship firm. So CHA at Mumbai while making all export shipments kept on mentioning PAN no of partnership firm instead of proprietorship firm which was a big blunder on his part and hence IT department through software system got information of export sales of Vardhman International, a partnership firm. In fact since FY 2009-10, no partnership firm in name of Vardhman International Panipat having PAN No. AAEFV0015G exists and hence not doing any business. So question of export out of India does not arise. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, in my considered view the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR for the assessee should be examined at the level of the AO and thereafter the issue in dispute be decided in accordance with law, afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to file all the requisite details/ evidences and fully cooperate with AO during the proceedings, to canvass its case properly. I hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.” 8. By respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2017-18 (supra) and by following the principal of consistency, we remand the issue involved in the present Appeals to the file of the A.O. for framing de-novo assessment in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 28/10/2025 made in ITA No. 7626/Del/2025 (A.Y 2017-18). 9. In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 4TH February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 04.02.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 5771 & 5772/Del/2025 Vardhman International Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "