HIMANSHU ENGINEERING WORKS,VATVA, AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1189/Ahd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम Himanshu Engineering The Income Tax Officer / Ward 3(2)(1), Ahmedabad Works Vs. Plot No.620, Phase IV, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382445 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABFH2716F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Divya Agarwal, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR 12/05/2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 05/08/2026 (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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 11.02.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15.

ITA No.1189/Ahd/2025 [Himanshu Engineering Works vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 – 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:

“1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing Ex-parte Appellate Order u/s 250 of the Act by confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. of Rs.1,90,80,000 u/s 68 of the Act, without deciding the appeal on merits of the case. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O., by following the Assessment Order. In as much as, Ld. A.O. had on vague grounds, made an addition of accommodation entry without any base. 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,90,80,000 made by Ld. A.O. u/s 68 of the Act which is against natural justice, since Ld. A.O. did not grant adjoumment asked by assessee, and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. u/s 68 in treating the genuine transaction with Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. and Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. as unexplained credits U/s. 68 of the Act. The transactions with the said companies are genuine, companies have full credit worthiness and they are assessed to Income tax. 5. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in treating the genuine transaction with Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. and Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd, as bogus and accommodation transactions. In as much as, the loans received from these companies were utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee and have been received through banking channels. There is no evidence of payment of cash against loan taken. These are not accommodation entries. The books of accounts of the assessee firm are audited, 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in charging higher rate of tax U/s. 115BBE of Rs. 57,24,000 and Surcharge of Rs. 5,87,939. In as much as, the loan accepted was utilized for the purpose of business and it is genuine business loan. Therefore, Section 115BBE do not apply to business transactions.” 3. There is a delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed.

ITA No.1189/Ahd/2025 [Himanshu Engineering Works vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 – 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned additions in this case have been made by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) doubting this transaction made by the assessee with Dishman Group of companies. He has further submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was not possessed of the requisite details and evidences and, therefore, sought adjournment from the AO seeking time to furnish requisite details. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass ex parte best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the Act making the impugned additions. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not furnish the requisite details and the Ld. CIT(A) also passed the impugned order ex parte of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further brought our attention to an application for furnishing of additional evidences, wherein, the assessee has sought to furnish the following additional evidences:

“1. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dt. 21/04/2021 for A.Y.-2014-15 (1 Notice issued by A.O.) 2. Copy of CBDT Notification No. S.O. 1703 (E) (No. 38/2021/F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL] dt. 27/04/2021 3. Copy of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 [F. No. 279/MISC/M- 51/2022-ITJ] dt. 11/05/2022 4. Copy of Notice u/s 148A(b) dt.26/05/2022 for A.Y.-2014-15 with enclosures - No details provided to assessee 5. Order u/s 148A(d) dt. 21/07/2022 for A.Y-2014-15 provided to assessee No details 6. Ledger A/c of Dishman Infrastructure 7. Ledger A/c of Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd.

ITA No.1189/Ahd/2025 [Himanshu Engineering Works vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 – 8. Bank Statement of assessee with Syndicate Bank, Maninagar branch, Current A/c No. 70101010003340 showing receipts of deposits by cheques 9. Bank Book of assessee with Syndicate Bank, Maninagar branch, Current A/c No. 70101010003340-Relevant to bank statement 10. Confirmation from Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. 11. Confirmation of Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. 12. Tax Audit Report in Form No. 3CB-3CD for A.Y.-2014-15 of 13. Profit & Loss A/c for F.Y.-2013-14 (Α.Υ.-2014-15) 14. Balance Sheet for F.Y.-2013-14 (Α.Υ.-2014-15) 15. Return of Income along with acknowledgment for A.Y.-2014- 15” 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is now in possession the requisite evidences, which are very much necessary for just and proper decision in the case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits. He, therefore, has requested that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO.

5.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

ITA No.1189/Ahd/2025 [Himanshu Engineering Works vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 – before the lower authorities is concerned, the asessee is burdened with reasonable costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will deposit the aforesaid cost amount within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order and will produce the proof of such deposit before the Ld.AO. Subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. The AO will pass the assessment order afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite details and evidences.

This Order pronounced on 05/08/2026 under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 05/08/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 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