JAGDISHBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI BODRA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), 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 Nos: 1297 & 1298/SRT/2025 Assessment Year(s): 2015-16 & 2018-19

Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Vs DCIT, Bodra, Circle – 1(1)(1), 701, River Residency, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395007 PAN: ABYPB6267B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Revenue Represented : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 16/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM:

I.T.A Nos.1297 & 1298/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 & 2018-19 2 Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra vs. DCIT 22.02.2024 respectively. With consent of both parties, these appeals were heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.1298/Srt/2025 (AY 2018-19): 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a non-filler who had not filed original return of income for AY 2018-19. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received for “Sale of immovable property and cash deposit” during the year under consideration. Various statutory and show cause notices were issued by the AO. In response, the assessee made part compliance to notices issued to him. The AO observed that the assessee has sold two immovable properties, i.e., (i) Rs.1,85,00,000/- vide registered sale deed registered with the Sub-Register Office, Hazira, Surat on 27.04.2017 and (ii) Rs.75,00,000/- vide registered sale deed registered with the Sub-Registrar Office, Borivali No.8, Mumbai. Further, it is noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.3,03,000/- against credit card payments with ICICI Bank and also deposited cash from unknown sources to the tune of Rs.28,71,050/- with Indian Overseas Bank. The assessee was granted ample opportunity to prove the genuineness of the

I.T.A Nos.1297 & 1298/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 & 2018-19 3 Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra vs. DCIT above transactions, but he failed to do so. After hearing the assessee, the AO made the following additions: (i) Rs.76,32,683/- on account of capital gains and (ii) Rs.31,74,050/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the appellant proceedings, no condonation of delay was filed by the assessee despite a delay of 76 days in filing the appeal. In Para 2(c) of Form 35, the assessee has claimed that the date of service of order is 06.06.2024, however, no evidence has been produced by the assessee in support of such a claim. The ld. CIT(A) relied upon various judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Courts and High Courts and held that no case was made out by the assessee for existence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 76 days. In absence of proper reasons, the delay cannot be condoned and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee preferred present appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the case on merit. Since, adequate opportunity of being heard to the

I.T.A Nos.1297 & 1298/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 & 2018-19 4 Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra vs. DCIT assessee was not given, it is a violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the interests of justice, one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee should be given to plead its case on merit. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is found that both before the AO as well as the before ld. CIT(A), the appellant has not complied with the notices issued to him to explain his case. Since the case was not heard on merit due to non-compliance of the appellant, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh by giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain his case. The appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and appear before the ld. CIT(A) to explain his case on merit. With this direction, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1298/Srt/2025 (AY 2018-19) is allowed for statistical purposes.

I.T.A Nos.1297 & 1298/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 & 2018-19 5 Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra vs. DCIT ITA No.1297/Srt/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16): 7. The grounds raised by the appellant are similar, therefore, this matter is also set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 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