PRAKASHBHAI KHENGARBHAI DODIYA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 790/RJT/2025
Assessment Year: (2018-19)
Prakashbhai Khengarbhai Dodiya,
(Prop. Of Jay Kishan Traders)
Vadgam Patdi, Akhada Vas,
Surendranagar – 382765
Vs.
The ITO, wd – 1,
Aayakar Bhavan,
Surendranagar – 382765
˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMSPD0068K
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Samir Vora, Ld. AR
Respondent by : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
: 03/02/2026
Date of Pronouncement
: 13/03/2026
आदेश / ORDER
Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, JM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year
(AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 08.10.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 12.04.2021. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse, are as follows:
“1.1 The order passed u/s.250 passed on 08.10.2025 for A.Y.2018-19 by NFAC.CIT(A),
Delhi (for short 'CIT(A)'] confirming ex-parte assessment u/s 144 and huge addition of Rs.74,81,000/- towards unsecured borrowings from 15 parties as well as disallowance of interest expenses of RS. 39,14,246/- is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
Page 2 of 5
Prakashbhai Kh. Dodiya
2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not adjudicating the ground of appeal relating to ex-parte assessment made u/s 144, though it was specifically raised before him at Sr. No. 1.2 to 1.4 of the GOA.
2.3 was a The 1d. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there sufficient cause for failure to respond to the notices of hearing during the course of assessment. [ it was CORONA
Period) and therefore urged to admit additional evidence/explanation as per Rule 46A which the CIT(A) has completely ignored. Hence the appellant should be allowed to produce additional evidence/explanation which should be admitted as additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules.
3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the unsecured loans taken from family members/relatives during the year of RS.74,81,000/- as unexplained and thereby also disallowing interest expenses of RS. 39,14,246/- though it did not pertain to the said parties.
3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding unsecured loans taken from family members/relatives during the year of RS.74,81,000/- as unexplained and thereby disallowing interest expenses of RS. 39,14,246/-.”
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and carried on proprietary business of running a petrol pump "Padmavati Petroleum and whole sale & retail trade in tractor & allied in name of Jay Kishan Tractors. He maintained regular books of account and the same were subjected to tax audit at the relevant time. He had filed his ITR for A.Y 2018-19 on 24.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 12,12,660/- It was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of unsecured loans & bonus/commission to employees. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO issued various notices of hearing asking to explain mismatch between employees' bonus/commission as per books and audit report, huge increase in unsecured loans. The AO has further observed that even as per tax audit report the fresh borrowings were Rs. 74,81,000/- from 15 parties. Similarly, the interest expenses of Rs. 39,14,246/- were in respect of the said borrowings. The AO has also observed that inspite of repeated opportunities allowed, no details/evidence was filed to prove the aforesaid loans nor the interest expenses claimed in respect of the said creditors. Hence the AO made addition of Rs.74,81,000/- towards unsecured loans of this year as unexplained and disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 39.14.246/-. Vide order dt. 12.04.2021. The Page 3 of 5 Prakashbhai Kh. Dodiya appellant claims that he is carrying on business in a remote place in moffusil area and depended absolutely upon his accountant Shri N.P. Patel since past many years who used to prepare the accounts, get the same audited and responded to notice etc., from IT department etc. Even the IT portal was exclusively handled by him. The appellant was having full trust & confidence upon him for the matters relating to accounts, audit, taxation, sales tax etc. since he was very faithfully & diligently attending this work so that the appellant had no reason to distrust him or personally look after his work. The appellant used to hand over immediately to him all physically received communications from IT Dept. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed from the tax audit report, Form 26AS etc., that the auditor has reported loan or deposit taken or accepted during the year at Rs.74,81,000/-. However, the appellant had failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders, hence addition was made u/s 68 of Rs. 74,81,000/-. The AO also disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 39,14,246/- treating the same as related to the aforesaid unexplained loans. 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO. That the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by following remarks: “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), before this Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assesse prayed for one more opportunity to be given to the assessee to represent the case before the lower authority.
Page 4 of 5
Prakashbhai Kh. Dodiya
7. On the other hand, the Ld.DR for the revenue submitted that the assessee is negligent in pursuing the case, therefore a cost must be imposed on the assessee, and the Ld. DR further relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.
We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued four notices to the assesse whereby by last notice the assess has requested for adjournment of the case however submission has also filed on 15.09.2025. the case was not adjournment by the Ld.CIT(A).
however, the assessment order was passed u/s. 144 of the I. T. Act. The Ld.CIT(A)has noted that the assesse failed to prove the identity of the lenders, genuineness of transaction and credit-worthiness with respect to unsecured loan.
Since the assesse asked for adjournment. Since the Ld.CIT(A) fixed the hearing four time but the assesse has not gave due care and attention to the notice issued by the lower authorities and remain negligent in pursuing the case before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as AO, for this non-cooperative attitude in pursuing the case.
We direct the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs.5000/-, and the same is to be deposited with Prime Minster Relief fund (Government of India), within 10 days from today, and the receipt is to be submitted with the