SUNIL BABULAL DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. WARD 34(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3969/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sunil Babulal Doshi ITO Ward-34(3)(5) (HUF) 1st Floor, Kautilya 24, Reti Bunder, Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Darukhana, Reay Road Complex, Mumbai- East, Mumbai-400010 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAZHS4206H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rohit Tawari, Ld. AR Revenue by Shree Kumar C., Ld. DR Date of Hearing 16.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for Assessment Year 2018-19,

2 ITA No. 3969/Mum/2026 Sunil Babulal Doshi (HUF) arising from the assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings as well as the addition of Rs.32,84,213/- sustained by the learned CIT(A). Since the appeal is being disposed of on a preliminary issue, the grounds are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs. 8,63,650/-. Subsequently, information was received through the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT under High Risk CRI/VRU cases that the assessee was a beneficiary of transactions with M/s Kusum Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.20,73,532/- and M/s KMP & Sons Trading Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.12,10,681/-. According to the information available with the Department, both concerns were allegedly engaged in providing accommodation entries through bogus purchase and sale transactions by utilizing fake Input Tax Credit and GST payments. Based upon such information, proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated and, after passing an order under section 148A(d) dated 31.03.2022, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. 4. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 29.04.2022 declaring the same income as originally returned.

3 ITA No. 3969/Mum/2026 Sunil Babulal Doshi (HUF) During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee submitted that it was engaged in the business of wholesale trading of metals and metal ores and had purchased iron and steel products from M/s KMP & Sons Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kusum Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. The assessee furnished copies of purchase invoices, ledger accounts, reconciliation statements, purchase registers and sale registers in support of the transactions and also relied upon judicial precedents in support of its claim. 5. The Assessing Officer, however, relying upon information received from the GST authorities and the Investigation Wing, observed that M/s Kusum Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. and M/s KMP & Sons Trading Pvt. Ltd. were merely accommodation entry providers. The Assessing Officer further referred to statements recorded during investigation proceedings and concluded that the purchases shown by the assessee from the aforesaid concerns were not genuine. Consequently, purchases aggregating to Rs.32,84,213/- comprising Rs.20,73,532/- from M/s Kusum Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.12,10,681/- from M/s KMP & Sons Trading Pvt. Ltd. were treated as bogus purchases and added to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The assessment was accordingly completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 24.03.2023 determining the total income at Rs.43,05,340/-.

4 ITA No. 3969/Mum/2026 Sunil Babulal Doshi (HUF) 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), after recording that notices issued during the appellate proceedings remained uncomplied with, proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of the impugned transactions and, relying upon various judicial precedents, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in treating purchases of Rs.32,84,213/- as bogus purchases. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2026 passed under section 250 of the Act. 7. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. It was submitted that although notices were issued during the appellate proceedings, the same were sent to the e-mail address which was being operated and controlled by the assessee's consultant Chartered Accountant. According to the learned AR, the consultant failed to effectively pursue the appeal before the learned CIT(A), resulting in non-representation on behalf of the assessee. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had duly participated in the assessment proceedings and had furnished all relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the assessee had substantial arguments on merits and had also relied upon judicial precedents, but the

5 ITA No. 3969/Mum/2026 Sunil Babulal Doshi (HUF) same could not be effectively canvassed before the learned CIT(A) on account of the aforesaid circumstances. The learned AR, therefore, requested that in the interest of justice the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to his file for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. The learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that the Revenue has no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The learned DR, however, submitted that suitable directions may be issued to the assessee to diligently participate in the appellate proceedings and extend full cooperation in the disposal of the appeal. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) has been disposed of ex-parte. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had participated in the reassessment proceedings and had furnished documentary evidences and explanations before the Assessing Officer in support of the impugned transactions. The learned AR has explained the circumstances under which the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) could not be effectively responded to. We further note that the learned DR has not opposed the prayer of the assessee for restoration of the matter. 10. It is a settled principle that no person should be condemned unheard and every litigant should ordinarily be afforded an

6 ITA No. 3969/Mum/2026 Sunil Babulal Doshi (HUF) effective opportunity to present its case. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the first appellate order has been passed without effective representation on behalf of the assessee and that the issues involved require examination on facts as well as in law, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 11. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to promptly respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues involved and all contentions of both parties are kept open for adjudication before the learned CIT(A). 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 18/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS

7 ITA No. 3969/Mum/2026 Sunil Babulal Doshi (HUF) आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai