IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Global E-Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hewlett Packard Enterprise, of Income Tax, Sy.No.192, Whitefield Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore.

Bangalore – 560 048.

PAN: AABCG 2843D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.

Date of hearing : 08.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025

O R D E R

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President

1. This appeal is filed by Global E-Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2014-15 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 04.10.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 30.3.2022 by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] was dismissed in limine by not condoning the period of delay of 2 days in filing of appeal.

Therefore assessee is in appeal before us.

2. The brief facts of the case show that assessee filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 at a total income of Rs.295,33,75,980 which was reopened by issue of a notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.3.2021 which culminated into a reassessment order on 30.3.2022 at a total income of Rs.297,68,30,810.

3. Aggrieved with the reassessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). As per Form 35, in col. No. 2(c) the reassessment order was served on the assessee on 31.3.2022 and assessee filed appeal on 30.4.2022. In col. no. 14, the assessee stated that there is no delay in filing of appeal.

4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that as the reassessment order was passed and received on 30.3.2022 and appeal filed on 30.4.2022, there is a delay of 2 days, but Form 35 neither mentions the delay nor any condonation application is filed and therefore dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine in the absence of any existence of proper explanation and reason. Thus, in substance, the reassessment order was confirmed.

5. The assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us.

6. The ld. AR submitted a paperbook containing 275 pages wherein at pages 202-205, notice of hearing of appeal by the ld. CIT (A) dated 19.1.2024 is filed. He also referred to pages 206-227 where written submissions dated 31.1.2024 is filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR submits that though the hearing was conducted by the ld. CIT(A) on merits of the case, but did not give any opportunity to the assessee for explaining the delay in filing of appeal, if any. He submits that it was never mentioned by the ld CIT (A) . He submitted that the date of assessment order is mentioned as 30.3.2022, the order was digitally signed on 31.3.2022, the notice of demand is also passed on 31.3.2022, therefore in fact, the order is passed on 31.3.2022. The assessee has filed appeal on 30.4.2022 and therefore there is no delay in filing of the appeal. He submits that even otherwise the ld. CIT(A) should have at least asked the assessee about any misunderstanding on the date of receiving the order. When the assessee in Form 35 has categorically mentioned that date of service of order is 31.3.2022 and appeal is filed on 30.4.2022, the appeal is not at all delayed, but is filed in time, but ld CIT (A) mentioned that assessee received reassessment order on

30/3/2022.

7. On merits, he submitted that reopening is bad in law, because reopening is made on the basis of same material which was available at the time of original assessment. Therefore, in absence of any tangible material, reopening is bad in law for the reason that the impugned assessment year is AY 2014-15. He further submitted that as 4 years have already elapsed, the reopening could not have been done on the basis of the rea