RANI PROMOTER PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. JAO, DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1628/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) RANI PROMOTER PRIVATE JAO LIMITED DELHI-110001 B-9 SHEKHAR APPARTMENT, Vs. DELHI-110091 अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AADCR8878D अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Rakesh Kumar Khiwani, CA ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Rajore Satish Chandra Ramsevak, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 25.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 08.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, New Delhi, dated 22.08.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 29.07.2022 passed under section u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 260 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its case ex-parte and thus its right to natural justice of being heard has been violated. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by compelling person reason were making requisite compliance to the statutory

ITA 1628/DEL/2026 RANI PROMOTER PRIVATE LIMITED notices of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that its rights of defending its case invoking provisions of Rule-46A of the I.T. Rules were violated in as much as the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidences purported to be filed by the appellant. It was submitted that it was prevented by justifiable cause for non-production of impugned evidences before the ld. AO. It was submitted that the impugned conduct of the assessee was neither intentional nor mala fide. It was accordingly requested that the matter be kindly considered for remission back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The ld. Counsel personally ensured that full compliance shall now been made. 3. The ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not seriously oppose the move. 4. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The misconduct of the assessee in not complying to the statutory notices of the ld. First Appellate Authority are evident from the assailed appellate order dated 22.08.2025. We are however in agreement with the justification tendered for the impugned non-compliance. It is the right of a litigant to defend its case with the evidences deemed appropriate. The said right is inviolable and cannot be brushed aside summarily. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law, while affording opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. The appellant shall be at liberty to produce all or any evidence deemed necessary to

Page 2 of 3

ITA 1628/DEL/2026 RANI PROMOTER PRIVATE LIMITED defend its case before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall be bounden to comply with statutory notices issued and any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. The appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Sd/- Sd/-Order pronounced in the open court on 08th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.07.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 3 of 3