KAMLESHBHAI AMRUTLAL BHATIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(6) SURAT, SURAT

1 The order u/s 250 passed on 20.11.2025 for AY 2008-09 by CIT(A), Mumbai, confirming ex-parte assessment as well as upholding the addition of Rs.30,86,095/- is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2–

2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in confirming exparte assessment u/s 144 inspite of there was no valid service of notices issued from time to time by him u/s 142(1)/143(2).

The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in confirming assessment u/s 147 when there was no valid and legal service of notice u/s 148 dt 19-3-2015 in view of Sec 282 r.w. Rule 127(2) so that the entire assessment made on 31-12-2015 and consequential orders should be quashed.

2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, there was no valid and proper service of notice u/s 148 and others u/s 142(1), 143(2) etc.

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in confirming the following additions aggregating to RS. 30,06,095/- (i) Unexplained payment to ABN Amro Rs.2,86,280/- (ii) Unexplained share transactions Rs.25,19,748/-

2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.AO ought not to have made above said additions aggregating to Rs.30,06,095/- It is therefore prayed that the assessment as well as the addition of Rs.30,06,095/- made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) should be deleted.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derived income from share trading at the relevant time. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had paid credit bill of Rs.2,85,280/- of ABN Amro Bank and made share transaction of Rs.25,19,748/- receipts as per 26AS was Rs.2,01,067/- but assessee had not filed his ITR for AY 2008-09. Hence notice u/s.148 is claimed to have been issued on 19.03.2015 which was served by affixture at the address as per PAN data base. During the course of 3– assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer claimed to have issued various notices for hearing from time to time and served by affixture but none of them was responses by assessee. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed ex parte assessment on 31/12/2015 by assessing the income out of undisclosed sources.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not appear before the revenue authorities due to the circumstances beyond his control and prayed that assessee may granted opportunity of hearing to present his case before the Revenue authorities.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations in support of the case. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non- compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is noticed that the non- compliance with the notices was neither deliberate nor intentional; however, the same cannot be fully attributed to the COVID period, as it 4– covered only part of the delay. Therefore, it would be appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee. The assessee shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the “Prime Minister’s Relief Fund” within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Since the matter has not been adjudicated on merits, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after verifying the details filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given due opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.