TARUN PAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), FBD, FARIDABAD

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the order without giving assessee a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard. (ii) That the non-appearance before the CIT(A) was due to reason beyond the control of the aSsessee. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 38,12,118/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3). (ii) That the addition has been made despite bringing on record the sources of cash payments made towards the purchases and audit fee payable. (iii) That the addition has been made by misinterpreting the facts of the case. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,95,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee holding the same to be undisclosed income under Section 69A of the Act u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) The addition has been made despite the fact that the assessee had deposited the same out of the opening cash balance and cash sales. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case. the NFAC has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,22,638/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unverifiable expenditure. (ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed at 1/5th of the total unverifiable expenses being adhoc and without any basis. 6. The applicant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not received any notice from the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) passed the order under section 250 of the Act on 30.03.2026 without giving assessee a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. Per contra, ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) due to valid reason that the notices were received by the erstwhile counsel of the assessee who did not intimate the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 30.03.2026 without following the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We follow the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court's in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) mandating to render substantial justice on merits rather than scuttling a case on technical or procedural grounds like time-bars. Considering the same and the reasons of delay, as reasonable and sufficient cause, we condone the delay. In the interest of natural justice, we therefore set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit documents/evidence as required by the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is decided in aforesaid terms. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07-Sep-2026 Sd/- Sd/- MADHUMITA ROY NAVEEN CHANDRA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 14.09.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS* Page 3 of 5 Copy to: SEEMA ARORA, 459, DR. MUKERJEE NAGAR, NORTH WEST DELHI, DR. 1 MUKERJEE NAGAR, 110009, DELHI, NEW DELHI-110009, DELHI