MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 v/s. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ACQPS 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

2. Ground 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of penalty provisions under Section 271AAC, 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. Ground 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CII(A) erred in confirming validity of reassessment proceeding under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding have not been fulfilled.

6. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.5100000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the appellant had no transaction with Shripal Vora and nothing is credited in books of account, then the provision of section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 will not apply.

7. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law. the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has no transaction of whatsoever nature with Shripal Vera and Globe 200 Sourcing Pvt Ltd. Hence, no addition can be made under section 68 and 69C of Income Tax Act, 1961.

8. Ground 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 140250 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as assumed commission paid, without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not taken any accommodation entry and not paid any commission.

9. Ground 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance under chapter VI-A of the Act of Rs.88235/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant has rightly claim the deduction under chapter VI-A”

3. There is a delay of 115 days in filing the appeal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, the reasons for the delay as Manish Bhogilal Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 well as non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) have been explained. Further, the Ld. AR of the assessee has stated that assessee has a fair case on merits. That the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.51 lakhs on account of unexplained transaction with Shri Shripal Vora, whereas, the fact of the matter is that the assessee had not carried out any transaction with the said person and nothing was credited from the said person in the books of accounts of the assessee. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

4. Considering the above submission, we are of the view that the interests of Justice will be well served if the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), however subject to payment of reasonable costs. We accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) subject to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will furnish the evidence of deposit of the said amount before the Ld. CIT(A), thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) will decide the appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 /02/2026. ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 27/02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Manish Bhogilal Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 4