BRIJESHBHAI SHRIKISHAN DADHICH ,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Brijeshbhai Shrikishan Dadhich Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s Goodwill Carriers of India SF Ward 3(1)(1), 206, Siddharth Avenue 2, Vadodara. Near Lileria Party Plot, (Previously ITO, Sama Savli Road, Ward 3(1)(2)) Vadodara-390008. [PAN: AHYPD6051B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Respondent by: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R. Date of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

“1. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal on the ground of procedural non-compliance by the appellant, as while filing the appeal to Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has inadvertently attached copy of a wrong assessment order and has also failed to produce the correct one even after giving further opportunity. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. Addi./JCIT(A)-12 Brijeshbhai Shrikishan Dadhich Vs. ITO, Ward-3 (1) (1) Asst. Year 2017-18 - 2– may please be set aside and direct him to adjudicate the following grounds raised before him afresh on merits: i. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in making Addition of Rs 13,30,400/-in respect of unexplained expenditure (Sec 69C) u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, without considering the 3 submissions made to the A.O. dated 08.11.2019 at ward office 3(1)(2) during the course of assessment proceedings. The impugned addition of Rs. 13,30,400/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. ii. The Ld. A.O. has issued notice to show cause Source of Cash deposit in credit cards Accounts. In his order issued U/s. 143(3) dated 28.12.2019, Ld. AO in his order has stated addition for not Explaining the expenditure incurred by the assesse. Further this expenditure is not claimed as expenditure for calculating/ deriving income for the year. The return is filed under sec

44. AD at the rate 9.45 percent profit of the gross receipt. The impugned addition of Rs. 13,30,400/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. iii. In the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The Ld. JCIT (A)-12 Mumbai ought to have adjudicated the above grounds on the basis of the submissions furnished by the appellant and the relevant case laws relied upon by the appellant and quashed the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. treating the same bad in law and in facts instead of dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and submissions, merely on a technicality of an error apparent on record. It is prayed that the orders passed by the Ld. JCIT (A)-12 Mumbai and the Ld. A.O. be treated as illegal and bad in law and are liable to be quashed.

3. It is prayed that the order passed by the Ld. JCIT (A)-12 Mumbai, being bad in law and in facts, may please be set aside and he may be directed to adjudicate the above grounds on merits by giving one more opportunity of being heard.

4. The appellant craves leave toa dd, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee, while filing the appeal, had inadvertently uploaded an incorrect assessment order and failed to submit the correct one even after being granted further opportunities. Despite sufficient opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and did not furnish the correct assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

Brijeshbhai Shrikishan Dadhich Vs. ITO, Ward-3 (1) (1) Asst. Year 2017-18 - 3– Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, the assessee would furnish all requisite details along with the correct assessment order before the Revenue authorities. Since the primary adjudication of the matter has not been carried out in the absence of the correct assessment order, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant documents, including the correct assessment order, and to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.11.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 17.11.2025 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy