SHANTI ANIL HINGORANI,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD/, AHMEDABAD

आदेश/O R D E R

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 05/01/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23.

“1. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeal) NFAC has passed the appellate order without providing video hearing as provided in Faceless Appeals Scheme more particularly when Appellant has stated that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided before disposing of the its appeal.

ITA No.702/Ahd/2026 Shanti Anil Hingorani vs. ITO Asst.Year 2022-23 2 2. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ex-parte and totally in breach of natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in making addition of Rs. 26,19,479 u/s 69A. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in disallowing business expenses of Rs. 16,74,796 without appreciating the documentary evidence furnished. The disallowance is arbitrary and contrary to facts. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) in the assessment order has made observation that the assessee has not furnished the requisite details relating to the unsecured loans as well as business expenditure claimed in Profit & Loss Account. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to a set of four Paper Books, running into thousands of pages and has further stated that all these documents were furnished before the Ld. AO. However, the Ld. AO has failed to take note of the same and proceeded to hold that the assessee has not furnished the requisite details.

3.1 Without going into the merits of the documents furnished, we are of the view, that in this case, the matter needs to be examined afresh at the end of the AO. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set- aside. The matter restored to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment on both the issues. The AO will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite documents which will be

ITA No.702/Ahd/2026 Shanti Anil Hingorani vs. ITO Asst.Year 2022-23 3 thoroughly examined by the AO and thereafter, the AO will give a detailed finding by way of speaking order on both the issues.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31/07/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member

अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 31/07/2025 TRUE COPY Tanmay, Sr. P.S. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 29.07 2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 31.07.2026 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 31.07.2026 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for : pronouncement. 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 31.07.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 31.07.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature : on the order. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :