ISHWAR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(1), DELHI

Since, all the above 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. The appeal in ITA No.4013/Del/2026 is regarding the quantum addition u/s 147/144 and the remaining three appeals are in respect of invocation of penalty proceedings under different sections. The quantum appeal is taken as lead appeal. ITA No.4013/Del/2026 3. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that both the lower authorities being the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. First Appellate Authority have passed an ex-parte order. The ld. CIT(A) has thus confirmed the order dated 25.03.2026 passed under section u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and penalty order dated 13.08.2025 and that the appeals were dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay committed by the assessee in filing of the appeals. It was pleaded that the assessee had committed delay of 246 days for which it had justified grounds. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had tried to justify the delay also on account of that the assessee is an illiterate person staying in a village and the e-mail of professional was given for communication. It was submitted that the electronic notices of the Department were sent to the ID of the said professionals who did not communicate contents thereof to the assessee. It was argued that the CIT(A) has not given any decision on the merits of the case. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication on its merits by condoning the delay and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A).

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. CIT(A) is not ex-parte. 5. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of materials available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assessee as to why it could not file its appeal in time, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Coming to the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority, we have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. We are conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. Assessing Officer 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. Assessing Officer for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. Assessing Officer 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. Assessing Officer is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess 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. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4013/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.4014 to 4016/Del/2026 6. As the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4013/Del/2026 has been remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication de novo, the penalty order contested by the assessee through ITA No.4014, 4015 and 4016/Del/2026 have become in fructuous. It is trite law that when there is no foundation, the superstructure collapses. In this case, the penalty orders are super structures resting on the foundation of quantum order. The same are also remitted back to the ld. AO for reconsideration in the light of his decision to be taken in ITA No.4013/Del/2026. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4014, 4015 and 4016/Del/2026 are also allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Finally, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th August, 2026.