SONI BHALESH LALITBHAI HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 1270/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai HUF, Vs ITO, A/106, Sangam Township Ward – 1(2)(6), Apartment, Pal Road, B/h L.P. Surat. Savani School, Surat-395009. PAN: AARHS 2990 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Shri Shaunak Zaveri, C.A. Revenue Represented by : Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 05/05/2026 Date of pronouncement : 18/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM: 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short, ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] dated 11/09/2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [here-in-after referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)/(NFAC)] was not justified and grossly erred in dismissing the appeal which is bad-in-law and against principal of natural justice equity, making individual enquiry u/s. 133(6) of the Act, thereby confirming the action of the A.O. for the order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is incomplete and also bad on facts.

2 ITA No. 1270/Srt/2025 Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai HUF Vs ITO 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting the addition on account of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act on total unsecured loans taken from various persons amounting to Rs. 5,63,59,189/-. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting initiating penalty proceedings 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1) of the Act in respect of income referred to in section 68. 4.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is an HUF. The assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 14/07/2018 declaring total income of ₹ 4,10,360/-. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on the basis of the information received from NeAC Delhi which was later flagged into to Insight Portal that during the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Shiven Infra for the A.Y. 2018-19 it was found that the assessee Riya Gems Prop. Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai HUF has given unsecured loan of 25.00 lacs during the assessment year under ₹ consideration. On perusal of the bank statement of Riya Gems, it was noticed that there were credit entries in the bank account of Riya Gems with narration "From Various Accounts" either on the same day or before one or two days of transfer of money to the bank account of M/s Shiven Infra. The Assessing Officer,

3 ITA No. 1270/Srt/2025 Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai HUF Vs ITO therefore, issued notice under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 13/03/2022. Though, the assessee submitted its response to the above notice. The reply of the assessee was not accepted by the JAO and he passed order under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 30/03/2022 and finally notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30/03/2022 was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, though, the assessee filed its return of income on 02/05/2022 but income declared in the original return of income was again declared as the income for the A.Y. 2018-19. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer provided the assessee several opportunities vide the details given on page No. 2 and 3 of the assessment order, however, no response was ever received by the Assessing Officer in response to the said notices. The Assessing Officer, therefore, again issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act but again no response was received from the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on a total income of ₹ 5,67,69,549/- by treating unsecured loan amounting to ₹ 5,63,59,189/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned

4 ITA No. 1270/Srt/2025 Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai HUF Vs ITO order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to give any explanation or supporting evidence despite several opportunities given to him. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant's counsel submitted an affidavit-cum-undertaking of assessee as under: "1) I, Shri Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai Karta of Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai presently residing at 8 A/106, Sangam Township Apartment, Pal Road. B/h L.P. Savani School, Surat 395009, being an appellant in the above appeal and the petitioner's order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961 dated 17-03-2023 do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 2) That as advised by my consultant that the said assessment order is factually incorrect and an appeal against assessment order was shall be filed before Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi. However, NFAC has dismissed the appeal and order u/s. 250 was issued on 11-09-2025 informing of the rejection of appeal on consultant email-id and contact number. 3) That appeal filed against the above-mentioned order was ought to have been filed on 10-11-2025. That I am not conversant with the provisions of the Income Tax act and rules. I am a law abiding citizen having respect and regard for the government rules and regulations. But as I being uneducated and was unaware of such injustice order passed u/s 250 dated 11-09-

5 ITA No. 1270/Srt/2025 Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai HUF Vs ITO 2025 against me and thus the appeal could not be filed within the 60 days from service of order. 4) That the email-id in Form No. 35 as well as mobile no. registered on ITBA portal was not belonging to me and I was unaware and later on the said order u/s. 250 passed the impugned order came to my knowledge through Income Tax Department recovery actions and I was advised by my another legal consultant that the said order passed by NFAC is factually incorrect and an appeal against the order was shall be filed before The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench and immediately I have preferred an appeal before your goodself. Hence a delay of 16 days is caused in filing the appeal. The said delay is not due to my wilful default. 5) That we had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue before the lower income tax authorities." 6. The ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee because there was total non-compliance both before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the circumstances stated in the affidavit given by the assessee and we think it proper in the interest of justice, to restore the matter back to the file of the JAO to decide the issue afresh by taking into account the details submitted by the assessee subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the assessee to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund

6 ITA No. 1270/Srt/2025 Soni Bhalesh Lalitbhai HUF Vs ITO within 30 days from receipt of this order. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and produce all relevant details before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his claim. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 18/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 18/06/2026 *Ranjan आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेशसे,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����, सूरत