DHARMENDRASINH HARISINH RAJ,BHARUCH V. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

ITA 304/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which confirmed an addition of Rs.74,46,620 as unexplained income under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The addition was based on unexplained credits in the appellant's bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially passed an order under section 144 due to non-compliance with notices, which was later upheld by the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes citing non-payment of tax on returned income and lack of specific details in the appeal form. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the appellant's submissions made through the ITBA portal, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773248 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.304/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid hearing) Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj 153, Chakla Faliyu, Village- Sayakha, Taluka-Vagar, Bharuch-392 140 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Bharuch, Income Tax Office, Hari Kunj, Station Road, Bharuch-356 069 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BIFPR 8389 K (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Appellant by Shri Sakar Sharma, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से /Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing 18/08/2025 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 23.02.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 144 of the Act dated 14.11.2019. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in deciding appeal ex- parte even though no notices were served on the appellant in the designated email stated to be as [e-mail] in Form No.35 but no [e-mail] which was not a specified email ID. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.304/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Dharmendrasinh H Raj 2. The Ld. CIT(A)NEFA erred on facts and in law in not admitting the appeal of the appellant in view of provisions of section 249(4) without appreciating that complete information was furnished in submission dated 01.12.2021. 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.74,46,620/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE on account of credit of equivalent amount in the bank accounts as unexplained income of the appellant.” 2. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.11,16,000/- in his bank account during demonetization period. The assessee did not file return in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, AO called for further details u/s 133(6) of the Act from the HDFC Bank Ltd. Bharuch and found that there was total credit of Rs.74,46,620/- in the bank account. Since assessee did not comply with any of the notices, order u/s 144 was passed determining total income at Rs.74,46,620/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) found deficiency in Form-35 and issued deficiency letter stating that tax on the returned income has not been paid and the particulars of payments are not mentioned. Thereafter, he invoked provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act and did not admit the appeal. He dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book and submitted that the assessee had filed various replies to the CIT(A), which had not been considered by him. He enclosed copy of the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement and submitted that written submission and various details had been filed before the CIT(A) in the First Appeal Proceedings, which have been totally ignored by the CIT(A). He, therefore, requested that the matter may be set Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.304/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Dharmendrasinh H Raj aside and the assessee should be given one more opportunity to plead his case. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He, however, submitted that the Bench may pass the order as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record carefully. We find that the AO passed an order u/s 144 after failure of assessee to file return of income in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The appellant did not respond to the notices issued to him. However, AO collected information from bank and added the total credits including the cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) issued deficiency letter which was evidently responded to by the appellant. However, he had mentioned that there was no response from the appellant and, accordingly, he did not admit the appeal and dismissed it for statistical purposes. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book and enclosed details to show that appellant had uploaded various details in the ITBA portal and, therefore, it is not correct to observe that the appellant did not file any reply. The Ld. Sr-DR has not been able to controvert the claim of the Ld. AR of the appellant. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for re- adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to appellant. The appellant is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary details Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.304/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Dharmendrasinh H Raj as required by the CIT(A) by not seeking adjournment without valid reasons. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 25/09/2025 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R KAMBLE) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Æयाियक सदÖय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदÖय/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सूरत /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 25/09/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ (अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाडª फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत Printed from counselvise.com "