SHALOO AND S BUILDCON PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-23(1), DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.2974/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2014-15)
Shaloo & S. Buildcon (P) Ltd.,
D-89, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi 110028

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: AANCS-8344-R
बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(1), CR Building,
I.P Estate, New Delhi 110002

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : Shri Subhash Singhal, Chartered Accountant
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
30/07/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
30/07/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 21.04.2025, for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri Subhash Singhal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) has erred in restoring the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). He further submitted that the assessee could not make submissions before the Assessing Officer as the notices sent by the assessee through email were never served on the assessee. The only notice received by the assessee was dated
17.03.2022 which was sent by the AO through Postal Department. In response to the said notice the assessee filed return of income. The return of income filed in 2
response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was rejected by the Assessing Officer as the same was filed belatedly. The reason for delay in filing of return was explained before the AO, i.e.
non receipt of earlier notices. The ld. AR prayed that the AO be directed to consider return of income filed by the assessee and make assessment thereon.
3. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that once the CIT(A) has restored the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, the assessee should not have any further grievance.
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the same has been passed by the Assessing
Officer u/s. 147 of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that the notices were sent on wrong email id, hence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and subsequent notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act were never served on the assessee. The solitary show cause notice dated 17.03.2022 was served on the assesee through post. The assessee respond to the said notice and filed return of income immediately on 23.03.2022. The AO refused to take cognizance of said return of income as the same was filed beyond time as specified in notice u/s. 148
of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering entire facts has set aside the assessment order and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment. I find no infirmity in the impugned order, since the assessee did not get fair opportunity to make submissions before the AO in absence of service of notice, the CIT(A) has rightly referred the case back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment.

3
5. In the result, impugned order is upheld and matter is restored to the AO for fresh assessment on the return of income filed by the assessee, in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wedne ay the 30th day of July,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 11/08/2025

NV/-

ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.