MANGLASWER PRASAD,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

“That the present appeal is being preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 21.11.2025, bearing DIN/Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082892398(1), for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. That the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) arose out of the assessment order dated 18.03.2023 passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), while disposing of the appeal, did not grant the relief sought by the Appellant in respect of the substantive additions, including the addition of Rs.68,33,000/- under section 69A and Rs.1,58,887/- in respect of contractual receipts.

That the Appellant has a bona fide and arguable case on merits. The disputed cash deposits were connected with the business activities of the Appellant carried on under the name and style of M/s Chamoli Enterprise, engaged in trading and servicing/maintenance of electrical goods. 5. That the business was duly registered under the applicable Sales Tax/GST provisions and the Appellant had filed the relevant Sales Tax/GST returns. The business turnover for the relevant financial year was reflected in the statutory records and the Appellant had also declared business income under section 44AD of the Income- tax Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A)’s order itself records that submissions were filed by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings and that the contentions and material available on record were considered. But later the order received showed that the Appeal was dismissed on account of Late submission of appeal. 7. That the Appellant respectfully submits that the delay in filling the present appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal was neither intentional nor deliberate and was not occasioned by any mala fide intention to disregard the statutory limitation. 8. That the Appellant is a small businessman and is not conversant with the technical and procedural requirements of Income-tax appellate proceedings. The Appellant had been dependent upon others for understanding the notices, orders, electronic proceedings and appellate procedure. 9. That after receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that further appellate proceedings would be taken up after obtaining and examining the complete records and taking professional advice regarding the substantial additions involved. ……” 1.1 Considering the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication.

This appeal arises from order dated 21.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC.

We have heard the Ld. AR and considered the documents before us. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration. We expect the assessee to be vigilant about the notices to be issued from the office of the Ld. AO and thereafter make full compliance so that there is adequate material before the Ld. AO for taking an appropriate view in the matter.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.