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

ITA 687/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Manish Bhogilal Shah against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed various additions and penalties under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the addition of Rs. 51 lakhs as unexplained cash credit and other related penalties and interest charges. The assessee argued that there were no transactions with the mentioned parties and thus, the provisions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act should not apply. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's request for a re-hearing and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, providing an opportunity for the assessee to present his case afresh.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841575 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANSHU GANDHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 147; 68; 69C

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत \u0010ा यपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode at Ahmedabad Bench] \u0015ी संजय गग\u0019, \u0010ा ियक सद\u001b एवं \u0015ी नरे !सा द िस\"ा , लेखा सद\u001b क े सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.687/SRT/2025 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah 6/B, Crown Mansion Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 बनाम/ v/s. The Income Tax Officer-3 Navsari – 396 445 \u0013थायी 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 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 27/12/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.687/SRT/2025 Manish Bhogilal Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 “1. Ground 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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. 3. Ground 9. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds OR to amend OR alter the existing grounds of appeal on OR before the date of hearing. 4. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in passing exparty order and without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.687/SRT/2025 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. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 /02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 27/02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.687/SRT/2025 Manish Bhogilal Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 4 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)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय \"ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u000f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत \"ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT,Surat/Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 9.2.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 9.2.2026 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 27.2.26 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 27.2.26 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "