HARSH BAKULBHAI MEHTA (HUF),SURAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, SURAT

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: 753/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24

Harsh Bakulbhai Mehta Vs Assessing Officer, (HUF), Assessment Unit, 204, Lake View Apartment, Income-tax Katargam, Dist – Surat, Department Gujarat - 395004 PAN: AAGHH 0064 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Shri Yogesh B. Shah, AR 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:

I.T.A No.753/SRT/2025/AY.2023-24 2 Harsh Bakulbhai Mehta (HUF) "1. The learned CIT (Exemption), NFAC, Delhi erred in not granting sufficient opportunities Appellant to to the submit written submission in connection with the appeal. Notice of hearing dated 11/06/2025 to submit reply on or before 17/06/2025 was uploaded on the portal itself on 18/06/2025. Incidentally order u/s 250 is passed also on 18/06/2025 without giving further opportunity for one day even which is less than 24 hours. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity deserved to be set aside in the interest of justice. 2. The learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming addition of Rs 36,55,924 to the returned income on the basis of unconfirmed information relates to the person who is not traceable and unanswered notice issued u/s 133 (6) of the Act, to said person. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs 36,55,924/-be deleted on the merits of the case. 3. The learned A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs 36,55,924/- which is on estimate basis vis a lot of purchase of Rs 36,59,243/- alleged to be made by appellant where such information is not complete information and the A.Ο. has not proved the nexus between the appellant and information of DDIT (Inv.)-Unit 2 (3) Surat and concerned banks have also failed to provide the details of nature of transactions took place their banking system. 4. The learned A.O. Assmnt. Unit, Income-Tax Department has erred in making addition of Rs.36,55,924/- on estimate basis being 10% of total purchase of 3,65,59,243/-excessive. which is too Where Honourable tribunal has adopted rate of 5% in cases with similar facts. 5. The learned A.O. has erred in charging interest U/s.234- A, U/s.234-B,U/s.234-C of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said interest should not be charged. 6. The learned A.O. has erred in initiating penal action U/s 270A of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case the said action should not be initiated. 7. The appellant may be permitted to alter, to modify, to rectify, to withdraw any grounds of appeal duly raised and grounds of to raise new the appeal during assessment proceedings.

I.T.A No.753/SRT/2025/AY.2023-24 3 Harsh Bakulbhai Mehta (HUF) 17.10.2023, declaring total income of Rs.13,04,110/-. The return was processed by CPC, Bengaluru u/s u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 19.06.2024. The assessment was completed on 19.03.2025 by assessing income at Rs.49,60,000/-. On perusal of assessment order, it was observed that addition was made on account of disallowance expenses amounting to ₹36,55,924/- claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued several notices on 01.05.2025, 23.05.2025, 02.06.2025 and 10.06.2025, however, no response was made by the appellant. The ld. CIT(A), thus, held that the appellant had nothing more to submit except for raising the grounds. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. N. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and held that appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. In absence of explanation and supporting documents, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel submitted that ld.

I.T.A No.753/SRT/2025/AY.2023-24 4 Harsh Bakulbhai Mehta (HUF) CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without hearing the appellant on merit. The non-compliance of the notices was not deliberate and the appellant is now ready to submit all details and evidence in support of the grounds raised by him before the ld. CIT(A). He requested that one more opportunity may be given to the appellant of being heard to plead its case on merit. 5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) supported the order of lower authorities. He would, however, have no objection if the matter is restored to file of ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions of parties and perused the materials available on record. It is found that both before the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A), the case was not heard on merit before of non-compliance. Thus, in the interests of justice, the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the “Income-tax Department” within 30 days from receipt of this order. The matter is accordingly set aside and remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

I.T.A No.753/SRT/2025/AY.2023-24 5 Harsh Bakulbhai Mehta (HUF) 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is 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