O R D E R

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 4.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083325287(1) for the AY 2017-18 and vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083321492 (1) for the AY 2013-14 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Since the issue in both these appeals is common in nature, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

For the sake of convenience, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.161/Bang/2026 for the AY 2013-14 be treated and considered as the lead case in which the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. The order of the learned CIT(A) NFAC Delhi, in so far as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal which was due to genuine and bona fide reasons against an arbitrary ex-parte assessment Order.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without passing a reasoned and a speaking order and without duly considering the detailed submission made by the appellant.

4. The LD CIT(A), ignoring the details furnished by the appellant about the jurisdiction, erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the FAO has passed an ex-parte Assessment Order in pursuance of a notice issued U/s 148 by a non-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and therefore, any Assessment Order passed in consequence, is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law.

5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the FAO has passed an arbitrary order U/s144 of the I T Act in violation of the decisions of Jurisdictional Karnataka high Court in Jayantlal R. Tunk v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1982] 9 Taxman 257 (Kar.) and Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1991] 59 Taxman 405 (Kar).

6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without appreciating that the FAO has arbitrarily estimated income at 15% of the gross contract receipts without any basis and without considering the submissions of the appellant.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the FAO has arbitrarily denied deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act and failed to grant credit for TDS and self assessment tax paid, without assigning any valid or cogent reasons.

8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the FAO has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)© and 271B of the Act based on an invalid and unsustainable assessment order and that such initiation of penalty proceedings is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the appellants case.

9. For the grounds stated above and for the grounds which may be permitted to be adduced at the time of hearing of the appeal it is prayed that the addition made in the assessment order be deleted and justice rendered.

10. The appellant craves leave to amend, substitute, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that on perusal of information regarding financial activities available on AIMS module of ITBA portal regarding NMS (Non-filer Monitoring System) having high risk criteria categorized, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had contractual receipts of Rs.17,27,04,584/- and interest income of Rs.23,550/- during the financial year 2012-13. Despite of aforesaid transactions during the financial year 2012-13 related to AY 2013-14, the assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2013-14. Considering the above facts, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2021 directing the assessee to file return of income within 30 days from the service of the notice in the prescribed form for the AY 2013-14. The AO was of the opinion that