MAV STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 16(3), DELHI

That the NFAC has grossly erred in law and on fact by dismissing the appeal of the appellant by dismissing all the grounds of appeal on the ground of non-submission of response to hearing notice which was beyond the control of the appellant as the accountant of the assessee, responsible for checking the notices failed to do so on timely manner resulting in an ex-parte order.”

Hence, we proceed to hear the matter ex-parte qua the assessee. When these facts were confronted to the learned Senior DR, she could not controvert the above fact situation that the order of learned CIT(A) is ex-parte and that also of non-prosecution simplicitor. We notice that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside. Further, we notice that the order of the Assessing Officer is also ex-parte and hence, the same is also set aside and the matter remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication including the jurisdictional issues. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1151/Del/2026, it is noticed that this appeal is filed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since we have already set aside the ex-parte order of the learned CIT(A) and that of the Assessing Officer in the appeal of the assessee under Section 147 to the file of the Assessing Officer in the earlier part of this order for fresh adjudication including the jurisdictional issues, the Assessing Officer can reinitiate penalty proceedings if, during the set aside proceedings, he finds that there is concealment of income on the part of the assessee. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is accordingly deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1150/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No.1151/Del/2026 is allowed.