JAGDISHBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI BODRA ,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

4. The facts of the case in brief are that in the instant case, assessee filed ITR on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.9,58,190/- which was found invalid. An information was appearing under the 'CRIU/VRU High Risk Cases', the -368/SRT/2025/AYs 15-16 & 17-18 Jagdishbhai K Bodra assessee had entered into several transactions during the period. It was also reported therein that a case was registered against Shri Jagdish Bodra, in respect of a bank fraud amounting to Rs.128 crores. According to the information received, Shri Jagdish Bodra had forged signatures of his erstwhile partners and obtained a loan from State Bank of India and siphoned off the said loan. SBI Asset Management Branch, Ahmedabad had issued a public notice in newspaper wherein possession of properties of Raj Infraspace had been taken by the SBI. During the course of investigations, the assessee was asked to explain the transactions in the bank accounts, however, the assessee was unable to explain the same or provide the requisite information. Funds were siphoned off by the assessee through the bank accounts of the several companies/firms managed by the Group. As per the information, an income of Rs.99,52,249/- chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. On the basis of information available with the department, the AO reopened the case of the assessee and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 18.06.2021. Subsequently, assessee was requested to furnish necessary details in respect of information received by the department, vide notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, however, no compliance was made by the assessee to aforesaid statutory notices. Therefore, in absence of any submission or reply of the assessee, source of investment remained unverified and hence, the whole amount of Rs.99,52,249/- on account of siphoned off of funds by the assessee through the bank accounts, was added back to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as -368/SRT/2025/AYs 15-16 & 17-18 Jagdishbhai K Bodra unexplained investment in cash. Accordingly, order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed by AO by determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,09,10,439/-.

5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, CIT(A) observed that no details were filed by the assessee and there was a delay of 188 days in filing of appeal, however, no case was made out by the assessee explaining this delay in filing appeal. Thereafter, CIT(A) observed that assessee was not vigilant and proceeded to decide the appeal based on material available on record. As per Section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal should be presented within the 30 days of service of the notice of the demand. The CIT(A) may admit belated appeal if sufficient cause is shown by the applicant. In case of the assessee, no sufficient cause was given for delay of 188 days. Therefore, even the preliminary onus to establish the existence of sufficient cause has not been discharged. In view of the above appeal was not admitted and it was treated as dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee contended that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the case on merit. Since, adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee, it is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice. He stated that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, Ld. AR contended that in the interest of justice, one more 15-16 & 17-18 Jagdishbhai K Bodra opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the lower authorities. He submitted that even in the earlier appeal against the order of CIT(A), who had confirmed the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the AO, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has set aside to matter to the file of CIT(A) in dated 09.12.2024. However, since the AO has also passed an ex parte order, he requested to set aside the matter to the file of AO.

7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR submitted that assessee was negligent during the appellate proceedings; hence, appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. In case the Tribunal decides to set aside the matter, appropriate cost may be levied on the appellant.

(AY 2017-18) 10. Though the grounds raised by the appellant are similar, but the facts are different. In the instant appeal, the appellant has contested the order of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act confirming the penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act levied by the AO vide his order dated 30.10.2023. The CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty of Rs.5,91,609/- levied by AO u/s 271AAC of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the 15-16 & 17

18. Jagdishbhai K Bodra CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order. On further appeal, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in and 751/SRT/2024 dated 20.11.2024 had set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of AO. Hence, we deem it proper to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after making the fresh assessment for the subject assessment year. Needless to mention that the AO should provide adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assesses is directed to furnish explanation and details as needed by the AO. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.