Balesh Devi vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1) Ghaziabad

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 24.07.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 14.03.2024 passed under section u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23 The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Registry has identified a delay of 151 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee, has pleaded that the impugned appellate order dated 24.07.2025 was received by the appellant through e-mail of its earlier employee who did not inform and that appellant became aware of the order only upon chance checking of Income Tax Portal. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. The Ld. DR did not object to the condonation of delay. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual had e-filed its return of income for the A.Y 2022-23 on 07.11.2022 declaring a Return of Income of Rs 13,65,316/-. The assessee is running a proprietorship firm under the name/tag, M/s Jai Shiv Jagdamba Steel located at Durgawali Gali Gate No.-1, Tronica city Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201102. It is engaged in the business of trading of cement sac and iron TMT Bar (high-strength reinforcement bars having a tough outer core and a soft inner core). The ld. Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.62,24,900/-.

At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the ld. AO has passed an ex-parte order. Reference was invited to para-2.4.11 of the assessment order, it was submitted that the appellant assessee was prevented by sufficient causes for non-submission of requisite details to the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order dated 14.03.2024 passed under section u/s u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the appeal is dismissed. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not tender any serious objection to the proposal.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We have noted that the order of Ld. Assessing Officer is indeed based upon non- compliance by the assessee to the show-cause notices. We have also noted that the Ld. AO has also drawn his conclusions in view of reported deficient compliance by the assessee. We are however conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We are also satisfied with the justification tendered by the appellant for its past non-compliance. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possesses the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.