IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Nutricraft India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, 14/1, Haudin Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore North, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 042.

PAN: AABCN 9165F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.

Respondent by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President

1. ITA No.298/Bangalore/2024 is filed by The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) (1), Bangalore (the ld. AO) against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ld. CIT(A) dated 12 October 2023 wherein the appeal filed by Nutricraft India Private Limited (the assessee) against the assessment order passed by The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1), Bangalore dated 30 December 2019 passed under section 143(3) of The Income-tax Act , 1961 [ The Act ] for assessment year

2017-18 was partly allowed.

2. The learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the appellate order and has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“ a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in law, to hold the view that only because the payment of remuneration to the partners is TDS compliant 86 has been offered to tax by the respective recipients, the said payment justified as a genuine business requirement?

b. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the payment of remuneration as genuine despite there being a payment in form of dividend thereby attracting the tax liability in terms of dividend distribution tax?

c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred by not verifying whether there were any extra services for payment of huge remuneration rendered by the Directors thus making it fall under exceptions as per section

36(1)(ii) for it to be eligible for deduction.

d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in law in to hold the view that the violation of the section 194C(7) does not result in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) even as the benefit of section 194C(6) is available only on fulfillment of conditions laid down in section 194C(7)?

e. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)

has erred by not considering the fact that the section 194C(6) and 194C(7) are to be read together and thus after obtaining PAN from the transporters, the requisite particulars obtained from the transporters are furnished to the prescribed authority as provided u/s 194C(7), disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) would get attracted.”

3. As the learned assessing officer as per form No. 36 stated that the order passed by the appellate authority on 12 October 2023 is received by him only on 12 October 2023, however the appeal has been filed on 21 February 2024 wherein causing a delay of 68 days in filing of the appeal.

4. The learned assessing officer has presented a petition for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal stating that the delay is for unintentional and unavoidable reasons. It was stated that due to pressing time barring matters and other miscellaneous work the filing of the appeal is delayed by 68 days and therefore it was prayed for the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

5. The learned CIT DR reiterated the same fact and submitted that the delay may be condoned.

6. The learned CIT DR also placed on record the letter dated 17/9/2025 wherein the learned assessing officer has given a complete detail how there is a delay in filing of the appeal. In the above stated communication in paragraph No. 3 the learned AO has stated that the present incumbent was promoted as Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax and subsequently transferred to another charge. The office