SAPNA SUDEEP BOHRA,CANADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (1)(2)(2), VADODARA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 73/Ahd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम Sapna Sudeep Bohra Income Tax Officer / Flat No.2804, D Wing, Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara Vs. Kalpataru, Kandivali West, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400101 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABXPB2236R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Hemant Bafna, AR ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 06/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement 03/08/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 14.11.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

ITA No.73/Ahd/2026 [Sapna Sudeep Bohra vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 – “1. The Appellant submits that the order passed u/s 250 of the Act is bad in law, hence, the same needs to be quashed. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without considering the submission made by the appellant and on the ground that appeal has been filed belatedly. 3. The Appellant is a Non-resident individual, residing in Canada for almost 23 years, having no income or business or profession in India. Accordingly, the Appellant was not required to file income tax return as she has no income which deems to accrue or arise in India. Further, the Appellant being a non-resident was not aware about the complexities of the Indian Income tax laws and the compliances which needs to be done on a regular basis. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of AO in making the addition of Rs 1,72,63,836/- being alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of which nature and source is not explained by the Appellant. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of AO in making the addition of Rs 59,74,668/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs 5,000/- being penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F by the Appellant.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in this case the assessee was not residing in India, when the assessment proceedings were carried out, resulting into ex parte best judgment assessment passed u/s 144 of the Act. Since, the said assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) did not come to the knowledge of the assessee, therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the non-appearance before the lower authorities was not intentional, rather, due to the aforesaid reasons. The Ld. Counsel for the

ITA No.73/Ahd/2026 [Sapna Sudeep Bohra vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 – assesee, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case before the AO and explain the source of investment.

This Order is pronounced on 03/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 03/08/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT

ITA No.73/Ahd/2026 [Sapna Sudeep Bohra vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 4 – आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad