Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations in cases of non-deliberate delay in filing appeals, particularly when the underlying assessment was ex parte.

O R D E R

PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 08.09.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2020-21.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing, without appreciating that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as per reasons mentioned in the impugned order.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in reopening the assessment assuming escapement of income based on incomplete and incorrect information, and in initiating reassessment without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 148A , thereby rendering the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B as bad in law.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in issuing an invalid show-cause notice under section 148A(b) and passing the order under section 148A(d) on the same day as the notice under section 148, thereby violating the statutory requirement of granting a minimum period of 7 days to respond.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in completing the assessment under section 144, despite the fact that the assessee was never validly served and no reasonable or effective opportunity of being heard was granted.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in relying solely on the employer's response to notice under section 133(6) without corroborating the same or giving opportunity to the assessee to respond.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing the exemption under section 10(13A) amounting to Rs. 5,20,427/- towards House Rent Allowance, despite the assessee having furnished sufficient supporting evidence such as rent receipts and declarations submitted to the employer and/or available during the assessment proceedings.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CII(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not granting the deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/- under section 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards interest on housing loan, despite the appellant being eligible and willing to furnish the housing, loan interest certificate.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not granting deduction under section 80C amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- towards employee contribution to provident fund, LIC premium, and tuition fees, which were evident from Form 16 and/or verifiable from the employer's confirmation.

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not allowing the deduction under section 80D amounting to Rs. 48,807/- towards medical insurance premium paid by the assessee, which is a legitimate claim under Chapter VI-A.

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in ignoring the TDS credit available in Form 26AS and Form 16 while computing the tax demand.

12. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete a