Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee was engaged in providing bogus bill and accommodation loan entries on commission. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and issued a notice under section 148 after the assessee failed to comply with repeated notices. The AO made an addition of Rs. 65,46,017 under section 68.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to furnish requisite explanations and documentary evidence before the AO and the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant details.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition made by the AO in the absence of proper explanation from the assessee; whether a fresh opportunity should be granted to the assessee to submit evidence.
Sections Cited
148, 68, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sonu Kumudbhai Modi, Assessment Unit, 401, Siddharth Apartment, Vs. ITO, Nr. Vishwakarma Temple Jurisdictional AO: Sagrampura Majura Gate, ITO, Surat - 395002 Ward – 1(2)(1), [PAN: ASZPM2107R] Surat (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.08.2024, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
Delay condoned.