PARESH MANGALDAS DHARIA,VAPI vs. ITO, VAPI WARD-7, VAPI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत �ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.37/SRT/2026 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Paresh Mangaldas Dharia, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.205, 2nd Phase, Ward-7, Vapi G.I.D.C., Vapi Income Tax Department, (PAN: AANPD6264C) बनाम/ Fortune Square-II, 7th Floor, Vs. Daman Road, Chala Vapi (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee by Sh. A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyar, CA Revenue by Shri Om Prakash Jha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20-07-2026 Date of Pronouncement 23-07-2026

ORDER Per Paresh M. Joshi, JM:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee u/s 253 of the Income tax Act 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] as and by way of a second appeal before this Tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:- ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083024281(1) dated

Page 1 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia 26.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act in the first Appeal which is hereinafter referred as the “Impugned Order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-2016 and the corresponding Previous Year Period is from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015.

2.1 That as & by way of an Assessment Order made u/s 143(3) of the Act, the total Income of the Assessee was computed and Assessed at Rs.1,57,39,590/-. The ROI was at Rs.3,31,670/-. An addition of Rs.1,54,07,922/- was made by virtue of the Para 4 of the aforesaid Assessment Order i.e. “Addition on account of Increase in Capital”. That the aforesaid Assessment Order is dated 18.12.2017 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”.

2.2 That the assessee filed his original e-return of income on 31.08.2016 declaring total income of Rs.3,31,670/- after claiming deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act of Rs.42,679/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 03.07.2017 by

Page 2 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia ITO, Ward-2, Vapi, which was duly served upon the assessee through speed post as well as on the email of the assessee. Thereafter, the case was received on transfer on 02.08.2017. Since still there was time to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the same was issued on 26.09.2017 by the undersigned, which was duly served upon the assessee through post. The notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with reason specific questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 12.10.2017. Further notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 13.11.2017 and 08.12.2017.

2.3 That the Assessee is an individual having income from sale of handmade paper, interest income, dividend income etc.

2.4 That in response to Notice(s) u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act the Advocate attended the office of the Ld. AO on various dates and submitted the details which were called for.

2.5 That during the course of the Assessment Proceedings, it was noticed by the Ld. AO that the Assessee had declared the Closing Capital in his ROI at Rs.1,96,11,209/-. It was further Noticed by the Ld. AO that the Assessee had not filed his ROI for the immediate two Preceding Years. It was further noted & observed

Page 3 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia that prior to those Years, the Assessee had Filed ITR–1 for the A.Y. 2012-13 & ITR-2 for A.Y. 2011-12. The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has further observed that the Assessee did not have “any Opening Capital figure” in any of the Preceding Previous Years. In view of this factual observations the Assessee was called upon and was requested to justify the “Accumulation of Opening Capital”. In response thereto the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted copies of the ROI’s of various years & so also submitted capital accounts of the Assessee for various years.

2.6 That Basis Information made available by the Assessee, he was requested to show cause vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 08.12.2017, reply of which was requested by 15.12.2017. Vide his submission dated 25.10.2017, the Assessee has claimed that the opening capital as on 01.04.2014 was of Rs.1,93,24,002/-. In view of the same, vide order sheet noting dated 25.10.2017, the Ld. AR Shri Jimmy Joseph was requested to explain the Assessee’s opening capital, in view of the fact, that the Assessee had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessee was requested to furnish the reply by 27.10.2017. Perusal of the details furnished by the Assessee

Page 4 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia revealed that from AY 2003-04 to AY 2012-13, the Assessee’s income, tax, drawings and Interest on Home Loan details were as under: AY Returned Tax Drawings House Net Gross Loan Amount of Income Interest Income 2003-04 4,34,088 32,463 45,005 3,56,620 2004-05 4,74,931 61,381 0 4,13,550 2005-06 3,27,828 26,403 36,296 2,65,129 2006-07 9,39,612 1,75,960 2,71,683 4,91,969 2007-08 14,58,375 1,32,000 1,19,899 2,36,172 9,70,304 2008-09* 7,52,501 1,00,836 1,20,000 4,81,321 50,344 2009-10 7,86,215 44,364 1,39,201 4,81,321 1,21,329 2010-11 11,95,600 1,61,280 1,20,000 4,53,613 4,60,707 2011-12 11,77,086 1,01,770 1,20,000 8,17,722 1,37,594 2012-13 13,38,673 1,00,712 1,20,000 4,85,108 6,32,853 Total 88,84,909 9,37,169 10,92,084 29,55,257 39,00,399 In respect of AY 2008-09, the details were not available with the Assessee. Therefore, the income and tax has been taken from Return of Income and Drawings & House Loan Interest taken on pro rata basis.

2.7 Basis above tabulation the Ld. AO observed that the Net amount of income available with the Assessee was of Rs.39,00,399/-. Further, the Assessee had not filed his ROI for A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. It was concluded & observed that such figures are not available with the Dept. The Ld. AO basis that the Assessee has been filing the ROI for many years in the past

Page 5 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia gave a leeway benefit of lumpsum amount of Rs.15 lakhs on this score but still total capital built-up came only to Rs.54,00,399/- which amount was far lower than the Opening Capital of Rs.1,93,24,002/- & consequently in the Assessment Proceedings requested the Assessee to Show Cause as to why the Difference of Rs.1,39,23,603/- should not be Added to income for the year under consideration, the Assessee, however, failed to furnish any details. However, vide letter dated 04.12.2017 Received by the Ld. AO on 06.12.2017 the Assessee stated as under:- “In continuation to my earlier submission, I would like to submit that during the year under consideration the assessee has started its business of trading of handmade paper. Upto AY 2014-15, the source of income of the assessee was income from salary and other sources and accordingly filed his return of income in ITR 2 wherein the details of capital was not required to be filled up. Assessee was regularly preparing his personal balance sheet and when he started his business in the AY 2015-16, the assessee has filed his return of income in ITR 4, wherein the requirements of balance sheet and profit

Page 6 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia and loss account was made mandatory and filled up the requirement of balance sheet and profit and loss account was made mandatory and filled up the amount of capital from his personal balance sheet. On verification of the balance sheet and capital account submitted before your goodself for the period 2004 to 2014, it can be seen that the opening capital as on 01.04.2014 amounting to 1,93,24,002/- was a brought forward amount from the previous year and during the year under consideration, the assessee has not introduced/ added any amount in his capital account other that the income declared in his return of income.”

2.8 That the basis above submission the Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has observed as under:- “In the above submission, it was only claimed that the assessee had accumulated its capital in preceding years; however, as per the figures as per the above table, it was noted that in 10 odd years, the assessee was able to accumulate only Rs.39,00,399/-. Further, as the value of money decreases, in the earlier years, the assessee would not have been able to accumulate such a big amount. Thereby,

Page 7 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia the undersigned had proposed a relief of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of earlier, accumulated capital. However, as the assessee or his AR has not furnished any reply to the above notice till 18.12.2017, the undersigned hereby makes an addition of Rs.1,39,23,603/-, as show caused in the show cause notice dated 08.12.2017 to the income of the assessee.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee has concealed his income for the year under consideration for an amount of Rs.1,39,23,603/-. In view of the same, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated.

Addition:₹1,39,23,603/-” 2.9 The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has made an addition of Rs.20,666/- on account of incorrect deductions by virtue of Para 4.2 of the “Impugned Assessment Order” as the Assessee had shown Net Proft of Rs.3,91,220/- which was credited to the Capital Account whereas profit from business was shown at Rs.3,70,554/- Profit shown less by an amount of Rs.20,666/-. Ld. AO also observed that the Assessee had shown

Page 8 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia interest on gold loan of Rs.20,116/- & Locker Rent of Rs.550/- which were claimed as deductions from his Net Profit in the ROI. The Assessee failed on above scores & hence addition of Rs.20,666/-.

2.10 That the Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has made addition of Rs.14,63,653/- on account of low drawings basis his observation in Para 4.3 which is reproduced by us as below:- “4.3 Addition on account of low drawings :- During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the undersigned that the Assessee had declared closing capital in his return of income of ₹1,96,11,209/-. It was further noted that the Assessee had not filed his return of income for the immediate two preceding years. It was further noted that prior to those years, the assessee had filed ITR-1 for A.Y. 2012-13 and ITR-2 for A.Υ. 2011-12. This represents that the Assessee did not have any opening capital figure in any of the preceding previous years. It was noted that the drawings of the assessee for household expenses was very low. In view of the same, the

Page 9 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia AR of the assessee was requested to justify the low drawings. In response to the same, he stated that his family drawings, when accumulated are sufficient. However, it was noted that compared to his income, his drawing were still very low. In view of the same, he was requested to show cause vide notice dated 08.12.2017 as under: “1. It is also pertinent to mention, that the assessee has shown very les drawings in all these years, except for A.Y. 2006-07. It is pertinent to mention, that in support of the drawing, the assessee had given only copies of capital accounts, which are neither audited, nor filed with return of income anytime. In view of the same, the drawings details furnished by you becomes dubious. In view of the same, ide order sheet noting dated 28.11.2017, the AR of the assessee was requested to justify the low drawings of the assessee. in response to the same, the AR of the assessee furnished the family drawings details of the assessee. The details were perused; however not found acceptable in view of the following reasons:

Page 10 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia a. Upto A.Y. 2009-10 no other drawings were there; however, the assessee was running his house with so less drawing, which is not possible.

b. The income declared in respect of other individuals is below taxable in most of the years. c. The capital accounts and balance sheets in all these individuals were never filed with return of income and were not audited as well. In view of the above, please show cause as to why the drawings should not be estimated as under: AY Drawings Drawings Claimed by the estimated assessee 2003-04 45,005 2,00,000 2004-05 0 2,10,000 2005-06 36,296 2,20,500 2006-07 * 2,71,683 2,71,683 2007-08 1,19,899 2,43,101 2008-09 1,20,000 2,55,256 2009-10 1,39,201 2,68,019 2010-11 1,20,000 2,81,420 2011-12 1,20,000 2,95,491 2012-13 1,20,000 3,10,266 Total 10,92,084 25,55,737

Page 11 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia * Actual figures are more than the estimated figures. Therefore, the actual figures are taken in this year. In view of the above, please show cause as to why the addition of estimated and actual drawings, as claimed by you, should not be made for an amount of Rs.14,63,653/-. The due date for furnishing the above details was 15.12.2017; however, the undersigned waited till date, yet the Assessee has failed to furnish any explanation in this regard. In view of the same, an amount of Rs.14,63,653/- is added to the income of the Assessee.” 2.11 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first-appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first-appeal of the Assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The Core grounds & the reasons are as under :-

Page 12 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia “DECISION 7. I have examined the order of the Ld. AO and the submissions made under the appeal filed the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-7, Vapi under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 18.12.2017. The appellant filed his return of income on 31.08.2016 declaring total income of 3,31,670/-. The assessment was completed at Rs.1,57,39,590/-. The appellant filed Form 35 on 19.01.2018.

Page 13 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia locker rent. Third, an addition of 14,63,653/- was made towards low household drawings, as the drawings claimed by the appellant were found to be grossly inadequate when compared with the income declared and estimated household expenses, and no reliable evidence was produced to justify the low withdrawals.

Addition of 1,39,23,603/- on account of Unexplained Capital

Page 14 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia 10. The Ld. AO undertook a detailed examination of the appellant's claimed opening capital of 1,93,24,002/-, Based on the return data for the preceding ten years, the AO computed that the appellant could have accumulated only 39,00,399/- during that period. Even after extending a further benefit of 15,00,000/-towards unverified past savings, the total capital that could reasonably be explained came to 54,00,399/-. Against this, the appellant has claimed an opening capital of 1,93,24,002/- without furnishing any cogent evidences such as audited personal balance sheets, reliable capital accounts, bank statements, or any documentation establishing the existence or source of such accumulated funds. The evidences filed after the passing of the assessment order cannot be considered at the appellate stage, as no application under Rule 46A has been made.

Page 15 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia interfere. Accordingly, the addition of 1,39,23,603/- is upheld.

Disallowance of 20,666/- (Interest on Gold Loan & Locker Rent)

Addition of 14,63,653/- on account of Low Household Withdrawals

Page 16 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia

Page 17 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia 2.12 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the Instant Second Appeal before this Tribunal & has raised the following grounds of Appeal in the form No:-36 before us which are as under:- “1. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the various documents produced by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings treating the same as fresh evidences produced for the first time at the appellate stage. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not in accordance with the facts of the case and law. 2. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making additions on issues not mentioned in the notice U/s. 143(2) dated 03.07.2017 in connection with the Limited scrutiny assessment. 3. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition to the tune of Rs. 1,39,23,603/-, on account of increase in capital. 4. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer disallowing deduction of business expenses amounting to Rs. 20,666/-. 5. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition to the tune of Rs. 14,63,653/- on account of low household withdrawals 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings.

Page 18 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia

Record of Hearing 3. 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 20.07.2026 when the Ld. AR appearing for & on behalf of the Assessee interalia contended that the “Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not proper. It, therefore, deserves to be Set Aside. The Ld. AR then contended that case of the Assessee was subjected to Limited Scrutiny only on the core issue of “Increase in the Capital” for the Year Under Consideration A.Y. 2015-16, however, there were two other items of additions. The Ld. AR has placed on the Record of this Tribunal A Paper Book Containing Pages1to 267 on 08.05.2026. On 15.07.2026 the Ld. AR has Placed on Record of this Tribunal an Application for taking on Record Revised Index of P.B. filed earlier. The Ld. A.R. additionally has placed on Record of this Tribunal a “Synopsis” containing Pages 1 to 39 dated 15.07.2026.

3.2 The Ld. AR then contended that on Page 17 of the PB there is a Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 03.07.2017 wherein the issue identified for Scrutiny Assessment is “whether the share capital

Page 19 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia is genuine & from disclosed sources”. Basis Notice, it was contended that even the title/subject matter of aforesaid Notice is “Limited Scrutiny” only. The same is position for 143(2) Notice dated 26.09.2017 at Page 21 of PB. It was submitted that even in PB at Page 25 which contains a Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act it speaks of “Limited Scrutiny” only i.e. “Substantial Increase in Capital in a year”. In support of Ground No.2 of Appeal Memo (supra) Reliance was placed on PB Pages 17 & 35 [copy of Deed of Transfer dt.27.09.2012 between Assessee and one Devang Hasmukh Kumbhani wherein the Assessee had Received sum of Rs.3,01,00,000/-. Our attention was then invited to PB Page 32 which is a balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 of the Assessee showing Capital A/c at Rs.1,96,209.38. Our attention was then invited to PB Pages 26 & 27 i.e. copy of Reply dated 27.10.2017 to Notice dated 12.10.2017 wherein Opening Capital as on 01.04.2014 was at Rs.1,93,24,002/- & closing balance as on 31.03.2015 was at Rs.1,96,11,209/-. It was then submitted that PB Page 32 tallies with PB Pages 26 & 27. It was then contended basis aforesaid that in fact there is No Increase in the Capital A/c of the Assessee. Our attention was then invited to internal pages 6 & 7 of the

Page 20 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia “Impugned Assessment Order” wherein addition of Rs.14,63,653/- is made on account of low drawings basis 10 years Records of the Assessee from 2003-2004 to 2012-2013. It was contended that low drawing is not an issue of limited scrutiny as identified in the Notice(s) (supra). It was contended that A.Y. 2015-16 was not just considered i.e. year under consideration. Basis Internal Pages 5 & 6 of the “Impugned Assessment Order” it was contended that the Addition on account of incorrect deductions in ROI of Rs.20,666/- is beyond Limited Scrutiny & so also addition of Rs.14,63,653/- on account of low drawings. The Ld. AR also contended that the assessee has been filing the balance sheet to the Dept. since 1988-89. Our attention was invited to the PB Pages 47-51 i.e. Balance Sheets for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and the balance sheet for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. It was submitted that the Core Reason for the Limited Scrutiny was Non filing of balance sheet for A.Y. 2014-15, however, for A.Y. 2013-14 the balance sheet was filed. It was contended that for the year under consideration A.Y. 2015-16 the two items are clearly out of Limited Scrutiny the first item being Addition of Rs.20,666/-

Page 21 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia on account of Incorrect deduction in the ROI & second item of Addition of Rs.14,63,653/- on account of being low drawings. It was contended basis Notice(s) u/s 143(2) & 142(1) (supra) that the Ld. AO’s scope of Adjudication was limited to core issue of increase in opening capital for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 & Nothing more. Our attention was drawn to Appeal Memo Page 20 internal Page 14 of the “Impugned Order” Para 9 which was read out & same is reproduced below by us :- “9. It is noted that many of the documents relied upon by the appellant in appeal, were not filed before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings and were submitted only after the order was passed on 18.12.2017. Before me, the appellant has not filed any application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidence. In the absence of a valid Rule 46A application and satisfaction of its conditions, I am precluded from admitting or considering any fresh evidence produced for the first time at the appellate stage. Accordingly, all additional /documents filed now stand excluded from consideration.” 3.3 Our attention was then invited to Appeal Memo Pages 13, 14 & 15 of CIT(A)’s order & the corresponding Pages 24, 25 & 26 of Appeal memo of “Impugned Assessment Order” & basis that it was contended that No Additional evidence was Required & that all the documents were filed before the Ld. AO. Our attention was invited to Revised Index filed before us. Our attention was invited

Page 22 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia to PB Page 249 which contained an Assessment Order dated 05.12.2018 in case of the Assessee for the A.Y. 2013-2014 basis that it was contended that Major Financial Transactions are accepted. Our attention was then invited to PB Page 256 wherein for A.Y. 2013-14full & final settlement of tax arrears was done under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Document is dated 14.02.2025. It was submitted that in the ultimate analysis at the end of the hearing that the “Impugned Order” is not on Merits & has Simply Reaffirmed the Ld. AO’s “Impugned Assessment Order”. Prayer was made to Remand the matter back to the file of the JAO.

3.4 Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for & on behalf of the Revenue stated that show cause Notice is dated 08.12.2017 [Page 28 of Appeal Memo]. The Reply of the Assessee is dated 15.12.2017 which was acknowledged by the Dept. on 19.12.2017 basis P.B. Page 218 & the “Impugned Assessment Order” is dated 18.12.2017. In Reply dated 15.12.2017 Received by Dept. on 19.12.2017 there is an endorsement of the Dept. that “Order has already been passed & due date for the same was 15.12.2017. Signed 19.12.2017”. The Ld. DR therefore

Page 23 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia contended basis aforesaid that the show cause notice dated 08.12.2017 (supra) was Replied late & by that time order was passed of Assessment by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) in Para 9, therefore, has not considered Additional evidence as there was No reply on record before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). At the end of the hearing both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR were at Ad Idem that the matter should be Remanded back to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration where all issues can be Re-examined on Denovo basis afresh. Hearing was over & concluded.

Observations, Findings & Conclusions:- 4. 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case & the rival submissions canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have heard the submissions.

4.3 We, after carefully perusing the Records of the case and after hearing & further after examining the Rival contentions of the Ld. AR and the Ld. DR canvassed before us are of the considered view that at the Fag end of the hearing both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

Page 24 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia were at Ad Idem that in view of Reply of the Assessee dated 15.12.2017 Received by the Dept. on 19.12.2017 coupled with the endorsement of the Dept. (supra) the Reply dated 15.12.2017/19.12.2017 could not be considered by the Ld. AO as the “Impugned Assessment Order” was already passed on 18.12.2017 hence we deem it fit to Set Aside the “Impugned Order” & Remand the case back to the file of the Ld. AO on Denovo basis. The Assessee is directed to raise all issues both on Facts & on law before the Ld. AO. We further direct the Ld. AO to pass a speaking & Reasoned order on Merits on all the issues so raised by the Assessee.

4.4 In the premises drawn up by us we Set Aside the “Impugned Order” as & by way of Remand back to the file of the Ld. AO on Denovo basis with directions as aforesaid.

Order 5

5.1 In the Result, the “Impugned Order” is Set Aside & the Matter is Remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO on Denovo basis with directions as aforesaid.

Page 25 of 26

ITA No.37/SRT/2026 Paresh Mangaldas Dharia 5.2 The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 23.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (PARESH M. JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER िदनांक /Dated : 23.07.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to:

Sr. Private Secretary, I.T.A.T., Surat

Page 26 of 26