SONAM JHAWAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1153/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 June 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation but acknowledged that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without a decision on merit. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income under the IDS-2016 scheme but allegedly did not pay full taxes. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10,75,000/- under Section 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with multiple notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 69A was justified and whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH SMC, SURAT

Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.04.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

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: 1153/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sonam Jhawar, Vs ITO, C-204, Shubham Height – 1, Ward – 3(3)(1), Puna Kumbharia, Magob, Surat Surat - 395010 PAN: AMZPJ6042L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Revenue Represented by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.06.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 25.03.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,75,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act.

I.T.A No.1153/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Page No 2 Sonam Jhawar vs. ITO 2. That Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in passing the orders ex parte. 3. Prayer 3.1 The addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC may be kindly deleted. 3.2 The Ld. Assessing Officer/CIT(A) order being passed ex parte, the matter may be kindly remanded back to Assessing Officer. 3.3 Personal hearing may be granted. 3.4 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing."

2.

At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional ground, are as under: “The Ld Assessing Officer has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in issuing Notice u/s 148, which is TIME BARRED in view of the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Rajeev Bansal.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee in an induvial and filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 10.03.2018, declaring total income at Rs.10,25,650/-. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) was in receipt of information from PCIT, Surat that the assessee had declared Rs.10,75,000/- under the scheme IDS-2016, but has not paid full taxes on the above declaration. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee, but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The AO, therefore, completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of

I.T.A No.1153/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Page No 3 Sonam Jhawar vs. ITO the Act by making addition of Rs.10,75,000/- being unaccounted money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued several notices of hearing on 27.05.2024, 30.09.2024, 07.10.2024, 15.10.2024, 30.10.2024, 16.12.2024 and 03.01.2025, but again there was no compliance on the part of the appellant. The ld. CIT(A), thus, held that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) by relying relied on the judgments of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461, Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP) and CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 confirmed the addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book and submitted that all details and documentary evidences were filed before AO. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 25.03.2025 without hearing the assessee which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to circumstances

I.T.A No.1153/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Page No 4 Sonam Jhawar vs. ITO beyond its control. The Id. AR then requested that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Jurisdictional AO. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the adequate opportunities were given to the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The assessee has been negligent and non-cooperative due to which the additions were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). However, he did not have any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of JAO 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that assessee has been totally non-cooperative during the appellate proceedings. The addition was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) based on the assessment order and not on merit. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued seven notices which were not complied with by the assessee. The ld. AR also requested for admitting the additional evidences. Considering all these facts, we are of the view that though the assessee was negligent and non- cooperative before the lower authorities, one more opportunity

I.T.A No.1153/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Page No 5 Sonam Jhawar vs. ITO may be granted to the assessee to submit all the details before JAO to explain its case on merit. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of JAO for fresh adjudication along with the additional evidence filed before us, in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 16/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 16/06/2026 *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

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →