KRISHNAMOORTHY BALASUBRAMANIAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), SALEM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"], for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. During the relevant previous year, cash aggregating

ITA No 3200/Chny/2026 (AY 2012-13) K Balasubramanian Vs ITO W-2(1) :: 2 :: to Rs.37,43,750/- was deposited in his savings bank account. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.147 read with 144B of the Act and treated the cash deposits of Rs.37,43,750/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), inter alia, contending that the assessment had been completed without affording him an adequate opportunity of being heard. However, instead of adjudicating the appeal on merits, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that there was a discrepancy in Form No. 35 regarding the date of the assessment order. According to the Ld. CIT(A), while the appeal form mentioned the assessment order dated 13.09.2021, the grounds of appeal referred to an order dated 22.09.2021, and the assessee was required to clarify the correct date of the order appealed against. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed solely on account of a technical discrepancy relating to the date of the assessment order mentioned in Form No. 35, without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. In our considered opinion, the discrepancy pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) appears to be a curable procedural defect. Such a technical error, by itself, ought not to result in dismissal of the statutory appeal, particularly when the assessee has expressed his intention to challenge the assessment order and the subject matter of the appeal is otherwise identifiable.

ITA No 3200/Chny/2026 (AY 2012-13) K Balasubramanian Vs ITO W-2(1) :: 3 :: 5. It is a settled principle of law that procedural requirements are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights. Before dismissing the appeal, the appellate authority ought to have afforded the assessee an effective and meaningful opportunity to explain the discrepancy and to rectify the inadvertent mistake in the appeal form. The right of appeal being a valuable statutory right, the same should not ordinarily be denied on account of a curable defect. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). We restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee with a proper, adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) shall permit the assessee to explain and rectify the discrepancy that occurred in Form No. 35 with regard to the date of the assessment order and, thereafter, adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and comply with all notices and directions issued by the appellate authority. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 06th day of August 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (Gagan Goyal) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद)य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद)य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No 3200/Chny/2026 (AY 2012-13) K Balasubramanian Vs ITO W-2(1) :: 4 :: चे�नई/Chennai, *दनांक/Dated: 06th August, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS आदेश क ��त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

SANDE Digitally signed by SANDEEP EP KUMAR Date: 2026.08.11 KUMAR 17:46:54 +05'30'