KISHAN JAYSUKHBHAI KATHVADIYA,GONDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20 under section 139(1) of the Act declaring a total income of Rs.3,08,500/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act on the basis of information received that the assessee had received credits aggregating to Rs.2,91,52,840/- in the bank account. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, various statutory notices were issued to the assessee. However, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documentary evidence in support of the transactions. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under sections 147 read with 144 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.2,91,52,840/- under section 69A of the Act by treating the amount credited in the bank account as unexplained money.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned appellate order is bad in law as the assessee had substantially complied with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings and had also furnished relevant documents. However, the learned CIT(A) failed to properly consider the material placed on record. It was, therefore, prayed that, in the interest of justice and fair play, one more opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the assessee, but the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with the necessary evidence. Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, no interference with the impugned orders is called for.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in the present case was completed ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. We further find that only partial compliance was made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate its claim.

Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all the necessary documentary evidence in support of its claim without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Accordingly, ITA No. 451/RJT/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.

As regards ITA No. 452/RJT/2026, the facts and issues involved are consequential to those arising in ITA No. 451/RJT/2026. Since we have restored the quantum matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty

In the result, both the appeals, being ITA Nos. 451 & 452/RJT/2026, are allowed for statistical purposes.