Shyamjee Prepaid Services vs ITO-Ward 49(1), Delhi

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 06.02.2026 and 12.03.2026 arising out of assessment orders dated 23.03.2022 and 26.03.2023 passed under section u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

Since, both the appeals are of the same assessee therefore the same were heard together and for the purposes of convenience are being adjudicated by this common order. For the purposes of this order, we will take facts and figures for AY 2017-18 pertaining to ITA No.4300/Del/2026 and treat the same as lead year. Since, facts for 2018-19 per ITA No.4301/Del/2026 is identical, decision taken in AY-2017-18 in ITA No.4300/Del/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis to aforesaid appeal also.

At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ld. Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order. It was submitted that the appellant assessee was prevented by sufficient causes for non-submission of requisite details to the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel informed that partner of the assessee firm Shri Shyamjee had unfortunately expired on 05.10.2017 majorly contributing to the impugned delay. It was accordingly requested that the matters may be considered for remission to ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication de novo. The ld. Counsel for the assessee assured that full compliance will be made to the statutory notices of the ld. Assessing Officer.

The Ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not tender any serious objection to the proposal. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the impugned order of ld. AO is not ex-parte.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We have noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is indeed based upon non-compliance by the assessee. 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 the matters deserve to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the orders 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.

As the facts for AY 2018-19 in ITA No.4301/Del/2026 are identical, the decision taken in ITA No.4300/Del/2026 for AY 2017-18 shall apply mutatis mutandis as well.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No.4300/Del/2026, ITA and No.4301/Del/2026 for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purposes.