SKYLINK CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI, DELHI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10451469 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in default of the assessee.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which did not file its return of income for the relevant assessment year. Whereas, the AO had information in possession that the assessee had made some transactions, during the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 08.02.2024. No return of income was filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s. 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices were issued but no compliance was made by the assessee. Accordingly, assessment order was passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 7.2.2025, determining total assessed income at Rs. 9,80,41,425/-. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee. 4. Against the impugned order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the additions of Rs. 9,80,41,425/- made vide exparte impugned order dated 09.01.2026 without affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without appreciating the genuine reasons for non-compliance, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as enshrined in section 250 and in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. None responded for the assessee. However, adjournment application was moved by the ITO, C-Bench on behalf of the Ld. Sr. DR, after perusing the said adjournment application, the same was rejected. 6. We have perused the records. We find that in the instant case, assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) passed the exparte impugned order and dismissed assessee’s appeal in default. Such reluctant attitude of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to afford last opportunity to the assessee and thus remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits afresh after affording 2 | P a g e