JIGNESH MAHENDRALAL BHARUCHI,ANKLESHWAR,BHARUCH vs. ITO,WARD 2(1), BHARUCH

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

ITA No: 1285/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Jignesh Mahendralal, Vs ITO, C/o-Shree Matangi Sugar Ward – 2(1), Centre, Dhobi Khaki, Bharuch. Voharwad, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Ankleshwar-393001 (Gujarat) PAN: AIAPB 2397 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A. Revenue Represented by : Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 04/05/2026 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 ld. CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad [In short, ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] dated 22/09/2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

2 ITA No. 1285/Srt/2025 Jignesh Mahendralal Vs ITO 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 19,37,511/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the addition by taking the rate @77.25% by attracting Section 115BBE instead of taxing as per normal tax slab. The addition if any that maybe confirmed should be taxed as business income. 4. Even otherwise on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retroactive manner by applying the duly substituted Section115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 35.54% as per the old provisions of Section115BBE. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of edible oil and sugar on wholesale and retail basis. A survey action was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 09/03/2017 at C/o-Matangi Sugar Centre, Dhobi Khadki, Vohrawad, Ankleshwar. During the course of survey proceedings, statement of assessee was recorded under Section 131(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and the books of account were impounded. In the books of account, it was found that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank account as on 08/11/2016 i.e. the date of demonetization amounting to Rs. 23,79,554/-. It was further

3 ITA No. 1285/Srt/2025 Jignesh Mahendralal Vs ITO found that the cash balance as on 01/04/2016 was at Rs. 4,42,043/- and closing cash balance as on 07/11/2016 was at Rs. 18,46,154/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the assessee to explain that why he was keeping a huge cash of Rs. 23,79,554/- on 08/11/2016. However, the assessee filed general reply in response to the show cause notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 05/11/2019 but did not furnish the details of how he carried out a huge cash. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added a sum of Rs. 19,37,511/- (Rs. 23,79,554 - 4,42,043/-) which included the SBN notes of Rs. 13,86,000/- as unexplained cash credit in the books of account of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration and taxed the same as per the provisions of Section 115BBE 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 order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits made in the bank account during demonetization period by making no compliance before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal.

4 ITA No. 1285/Srt/2025 Jignesh Mahendralal Vs ITO 5. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee's counsel submitted that reasonable opportunity was not provided to the assessee to explain his case and requested to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for considering the details submitted before the Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection to this effect. 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the material available on record and also considered the submissions made by the appellant's counsel. During the course of hearing, the appellant submitted various details to explain the source of the said cash deposits. However, we consider, this is a fit case where the matter may be restored back to the file of the JAO for fresh adjudication, therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of the JAO to decide the issue afresh after taking into account all relevant documents submitted by the appellant before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal. The assessee shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing before decide the issue afresh. The appellant is also directed to provide all relevant documents before the JAO.

5 ITA No. 1285/Srt/2025 Jignesh Mahendralal Vs ITO 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