HANOZE H THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER RATNA DASGPUTA, AM

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A)] on 25/05/2026 for A.Y. 2013-14 on the following grounds:

Hanoze H Thakkar 2 ITA No. 7383/MUM/2026

i. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter also referred to as the CIT(Appeals)] has erred in not considering the written submissions and the additional evidences filed by the Appellant during the course of the said first appellate proceedings (on 19.03.2026 & 05.05.2026). ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in not granting the credit for Tax Deducted at Source aggregating to Rs. 3,87,000/- (which was duly reflecting in Form 26AS) in the tax computation sheet (annexed with the order of re-assessment) despite there being no adverse inference made for the same in the impugned order of re-assessment. iii. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in including a sum of Rs. 1,79,152/ in the tax computation sheet (annexed with the order of re- assessment); as 'income chargeable at special rate' despite there being no such addition made in the impugned order of re- assessment. iv. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, in utter disregards to the written submissions and additional evidences filed by the Appellant; the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in making following additions solely and merely based on Form 26A disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case:- (a) Salary income Rs. 4,22,776/- (b) Interest income Rs. 91,732/- (c) Investment in FDRs - Rs. 7,19,152/- (d) Estimated business income - Rs. 8,02,432/- (e) Commission income Rs. 26,50,129/-

v. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld.

Hanoze H Thakkar 3 ITA No. 7383/MUM/2026

Assessing Officer without granting adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard. vi. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in re-opening the assessment in gross violation of the provisions of section 147 to section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. vii. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee, an individual, did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14, although information available under AIMS module of ITBA under the head 'Non-filers Monitoring System' showed that during the relevant year the assessee was in receipt of substantial income from salary, commission/brokerage, time deposits etc. In view of these high- volume transactions that were noted, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31/03/2021. There was no reply either to this notice or to the notice u/s 142(1) which was subsequently issued on 19/11/2021 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) but the assessee did not respond to notice u/s 142(1) issued by the FAO. Copy of the notice was manually served on the assessee through the Verification Unit, but the assessee remained non-compliant to the notices issued. When the assessee did not respond despite ample opportunities afforded, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to complete the assessment

Hanoze H Thakkar 4 ITA No. 7383/MUM/2026

ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act, making addition of Rs. 46,86,221/- under various heads.

2.1 Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on two main grounds relating to -

(i) Addition of Rs. 7,19,152/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act; & (ii) Addition of Rs. 26,50,129/- as commission/brokerage income. During the course of appellate proceedings, as part of the statement of facts submitted to the CIT(A), the assessee mentioned other additions made by the Ld. AO – viz. viz. Rs. 4,22,776/- as income from salary, Rs. 91,732/-, as interest income and Rs. 8,02,432/- as estimated business income u/s 44AD, but did not specifically raise them in the form of specific grounds of appeal.

2.2 Based on the assessee’s representation, the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the assessee’s delay delay in filing appeal in Form 35, but in the absence of proper corroborative evidence in the form of books of account or otherwise, he upheld the Ld. AO's addition on both the counts of unexplained investment and income from commission/brokerage.

2.3 It is against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Hanoze H Thakkar 5 ITA No. 7383/MUM/2026

Hanoze H Thakkar 6 ITA No. 7383/MUM/2026

another letter in the form of an application to admit modified and additional grounds of appeal. In these additional grounds of appeal, we find that only Ground nos. 1 and 4 are essentially new. These challenge the validity of the reopening of assessment, alleging that the assessee was not provided copy of the sanction note which was claimed to have been obtained u/s 151 of the Act. So far as the new issues raised before this Tribunal are concerned, these are contained in Ground nos. 2 & 3 & relate to non-granting of credit for TDS of Rs. 3,87,000/- and inclusion of Rs. 1,79,152/- in the tax computation as 'income chargeable at special rate' although there was no such addition warranting the special rate.

Together with this, although the Ld. AR has not so mentioned, 4.1 we find that in the grounds raised before this Tribunal, clauses (a) (b) and (d) of Ground 4 have now been taken up although these have not been agitated earlier. These relate to additions on account of –

- Salary income of Rs. 4,224776/- - Interest income of Rs. 91,732/- - Estimated business income of Rs. 8,02,432/- 5. We have considered the admission of the new grounds/evidence in the light of Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The new grounds raised are mostly factual issues which, though already on record, have not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A). The

Hanoze H Thakkar 7 ITA No. 7383/MUM/2026

other ground regarding validity of the reassessment proceedings is a legal ground but requires verification of a limited factual issue. It is evident from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the submissions made by the assessee vide letter dated 18/03/2026 (filed on 19/03/2026), and reiterated in submission filed 05/05/2026, were never considered by the Ld. CIT(A) although his order was passed on 25/05/2026. The assessment order was passed ex-parte, and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. AO on account of lack of proper substantiating evidence. The primary function of this Tribunal is to impart justice and, although the responsibility for non-compliance lies with the assessee himself, we nevertheless deem it appropriate to admit the new grounds/evidence & remand the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law. The Ld. DR did not object to such remand. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal, including the additional grounds raised, and consider the contention of the assessee contained in the impugned letters. Needless to state, sufficient opportunity will be given to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is also directed to fully co-operate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish all necessary documents and information.

Hanoze H Thakkar 8 ITA No. 7383/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/09/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (RATNA DASGPUTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 11/09/2026 Z.U., P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai