SH. RAHUL DHINGRA (HUF),DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-49(1), DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3041/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) SH. RAHUL DHINGRA (HUF) ITO, WARD-49(1) SH. RAHUL DHINGRA (HUF) M-63, ITO, WARD-49(1) Vs. KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI- DELHI-110002, DELHI 110015, DELHI अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AATHR1850A

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: CA Saksham Agarwal, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 14.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 17.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER 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 17.02.2026 arising out of assessment order dated 19.11.2019 passed under section u/s 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the ld. AO has passed an ex-parte order. It was submitted that the appellant assessee was

ITA 3041/DEL/2026 SH. RAHUL DHINGRA (HUF)

prevented by sufficient causes for non-submission of requisite details to the lower authorities. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the order dated 19.11.2019 passed under section u/s u/s 144 in a mechanical and cryptic manner by merely confirming the action of ld. Assessing Officer. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication de novo. The ld. Counsel assured that full compliance will be made to the statutory notices of the ld. Assessing Officer. 3. 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. 4. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 5. We have noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is indeed based upon no compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices of the ld. Assessing Officer. 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 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

Page 2 of 3

ITA 3041/DEL/2026 SH. RAHUL DHINGRA (HUF)

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. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:17.07.2026 Shekhar