MENAND SUGHABHAI ODEDRA,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO, WARD - 2(4), PORBANDAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Judicial Member

ITA No. 781/RJT/2025 Assessment Year 2015-16

Menand Sughabhai The Income Tax Odedara, Officer, Ward-2(4), Third floor, Tulsi Vs Porbandar Chamber, Krishna Street, Haveli Street, Junagadh- 362001 PAN: AALPO7474R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.R. Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.04.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : Dr. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, J.M.:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

I.T.A No. 781/RJT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 2 Menand Sughabhai Odedara VS. The ITO, Ward-2(4), Porbandar “1.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Cenre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering the facts of the case and made addition without any base. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, order passed by the Assessment unit, Income Tax Department u/s. 147 rws 144 rws 144b of the act is bad in law. 3. On merits, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in upholding 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and he had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. The case was reopened u/s. 147 rws 148A on the basis of information shared with the AO through ITBA as per the Risk management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, according to which the assesse has sold immovable property for Rs. 2,45,85,525/- but no return of income was filed for A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 was issued rws 148A(d) of the Act on 05/04/2022. There was no response from the assesse to the notice u/s. 148 as well as hearing notices issued during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the AO had completed assessment u/s. 144 determining the short term capital gain at Rs. 2,45,85,525/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order of Assessing Officer and dismissed the ground regarding addition of Rs. 2,45,85,525/- on account of STCG and dismissed the appeal. 5. Therefore, the Assessee has filed the appeal before us. AR of the assesse has submitted that, Assessee is an agriculturist and has no access of e-filing

I.T.A No. 781/RJT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 3 Menand Sughabhai Odedara VS. The ITO, Ward-2(4), Porbandar portal. Assessee did not receive any notice from the Assessing Officer by post also because, the address mentioned in the notice is different from the assesse is actually residing. The e-mail id is also different from Assessee’s mail id. Because of that he did not comply any notice. During course of hearing of before CIT(A), adjournment request has been filed by the AR of the Assessee three times only. CIT(A) has not given more opportunity of hearing to the Assessee and upheld the assessment order by confirming the addition for Rs. 2,45,85,525/-. 6. Therefore, we are inclined to restore back the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after giving sufficient opportunities of being heard to the Assessee as well as he may be given opportunity for production of necessary documents to prove genuineness of transaction.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (Dr. DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot : Dated 20.04.2026 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar/Senior PS / PS