SACHIN SAWHNEY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act dated 24.03.2025 and the ex-parte original appeal order dated 27.11.2021 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] passed by the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. NFAC"] is perverse, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC has grossly erred in passing Impugned order u/s 154 r.w.s 250 of the Act and the ex-parte original appeal order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the Ld. NFAC has committed a grave error while passing the original appeal order u/s 250 of the Act by incorrectly perusing the material on record and misinterpreting the issue by misreading the disallowance of deduction u/s "80JJA" as "80JJAA" which is a mistake apparent from face of the record. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has passed an arbitrary order u/s 154 r.w.s 250 of the Act dated 24.03.2025 without rectifying the mistake apparent from record by justifying that the original appeal was not admitted, however no opportunity to place on record the submissions was provided to the appellant. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJA made by the CPC without considering the fact that u/s 143(1)(a)(v) no disallowance of deduction of Section 80JJA could have been made even if the return of

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, by the original order dated 27.11.2021 passed under section 250 of the Act, the learned CIT(A) had declined to admit the appeal on account of the assessee’s failure to establish sufficient cause for the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal. The assessee thereafter filed an application seeking rectification of the said order, which was rejected by the learned CIT(A), observing as under:

In the present case, the learned CIT(A) rejected the rectification application on the ground that no mistake apparent from the record had been established. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application under section 154. The grounds challenging the merits of the disallowance under section 80JJA and the consequential levy of interest do not require adjudication in the present appeal, which is directed against the order rejecting rectification.

The assessee, however, shall be at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, against the original appellate order dated 27.11.2021. Any application for condonation of delay in pursuing such remedy shall be considered by the competent Bench in accordance with law, on its own merits.