HRISHAV RAJ ,KHAGARIA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) BEGUSARAI , BEGUSARAI

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.3,56,100/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. In response to notice u/s 148, assessee submitted the return of income, however, the said return was not duly verified. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the same invalid as non-est return, thereafter, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for various details including the

I.T.A. No.42/Pat/2026 Hrishav Raj; AY: 2018-19 nature of the professional receipts, details of bank accounts, agreement and supporting documents along with computation of the income. Upon examination of the record, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has reverted salary income and shown it as professional income there were claiming inadmissible expenditure. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance expenses of Rs.1,89,000/- and disallowance of deduction of Rs.54,900/- and assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was delay of 7 days before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay without adjudicating the issues on merit. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The primary contention of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal purely on technical ground without condoning minor delay of 7 days which ought to have been condoned, even the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merit which is contrary to the settled principle of law. 5. We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record, in the present case of the assessee, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order, and appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to 7 days of delay in filing the appeal before him which is marginal and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. It is settled position of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical consideration. The dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating the issues on merit is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh on merit, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

I.T.A. No.42/Pat/2026 Hrishav Raj; AY: 2018-19 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 28th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28.04.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches