Dreamtech Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Center New Delhi-110092

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, both dated 18.07.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed under section u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and penalty order dated 25.06.2024 passed u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2019-20.

The assessee was called absent.

Both the appeals of the assessee are on the twin issue of quantum addition as well as penalty imposition u/s 271B for the same assessment year. For the purposes of convenience, the twin appeals were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.

At the outset, we have noted that the Registry has identified the delay of 73 and 74 days in these cases for filing of appeals. Justifying the delay, the appellant had submitted that due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons including administrative constraints and delay in obtaining professional advice, the appeal could not file in time. It was submitted that the assessee was unable to properly monitor the affairs of its business and that the e-mail given to the revenue authorities belonged to an outsourced accountant. All these factors contributed to the above-mentioned delays. Thus, it was argued that the delay is not intentional. We are conscious that no litigant gains by delay its matter. The Ld. DR did not seriously object to the condonation of delay. Delay of 73 and 74 days in filing of these assessee’s appeals are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

The Ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case concerning merits of the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) through his order dated 18.07.2025 confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO qua the merits of the addition. The Ld. DR argued in favour of the order of lower authorities. It was contended that the order has been made after carefully considering the varied facts of this case in the light of material available on records. The ld. DR specifically stressed that the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). Thus, attention was invited to para-4 of page 20 of the appellate order for quantum addition as well as the penalty order.

We have considered the matter in the light of material available on records and arguments put-forth by the ld. DR. It is undisputed facts on records that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order, which alludes that the assessee has not been able to get a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecuting his/her case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. Accordingly, we remit the file to the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo, in accordance with law and after passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with the statutory notices and any non-compliance would be adversely viewed. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.8342/Del/2025 is therefore allowed for statistical purposes.

The decision taken in ITA No.8342/Del/2025 would also apply mutatis mutandis in assessee’s appeal in ITA No.8361/Del/2025 since the same is resting upon identical facts of the case. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.8361/Del/2025 is therefore also allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.