VIKRAMKUMAR BHAVARLAL DAVE,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

ITA 828/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.3,01,65,800 as bogus/unexplained expenditure for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The AO had reopened the case based on information that the assessee engaged in bogus transactions with Bharat B Purohit, who provided accommodation entries. The assessee did not file a return for the year in question, and upon reopening, did not respond to notices during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the purchases were genuine and directed a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837916 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained expenditure; Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries; Recovery proceedings; Bogus
• Section: 147; 144; 69C

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0016ी संजय गग\u001b, \u0011ाियक सद एवं \u0016ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद क े सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.828/Ahd/2025 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave C-168, Shivam Duplex Opp. Ambe School Manjalpur Vadodara – 390 011 बनाम/ v/s. The ITO Ward-1(2)(2) Vadodara – 390 007 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: BRQPD 7728 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prashant Upadhyay, CA Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 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 07/11/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee, in this appeal, is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.3,01,65,800/- on account of bogus/unexplained expenditure. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 828/Ahd/2025 Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19 2 3. The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 80 days. A separate application for condonation has been filed in the shape of an affidavit of an assessee, wherein, he has deposed that the assessee had not received any notice u/s.148 of the Act. That the notices, if any, were served by the Inspector of the Department at the address of his authorized representative (AR) while he was out of station. Even on his return, the said AR did not inform the assessee of any such notices resulting into an ex-parte assessment order making an addition of Rs. 3,01,65,800/-. Further, the said AR of the assessee also did not represent the case of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) nor guided the assessee as to what necessary documents the assessee was required to furnish before the Ld. CIT(A). That the assessee came to know of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only when the tax-recovery proceedings were initiated. Considering the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit of the assessee, the delay of 80 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income (ITR) during the year under consideration. The case was reopened by the AO based on the information available on record that the assessee has entered into bogus sale/purchase transactions with one Shri Bharat B Purohit, who was engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties. The AO noted that the assessee had made transaction of Rs. 2,94,15,000/- with the said Shri Bharat B Purohit, Prop- Bharat Trading Co., which were not genuine. As the case was reopened, various statutory notices were issued to the assessee by the AO during assessment proceedings, however, the assessee did not file any reply to the same. Further, during the assessment proceedings the assessee , however, stated that during the year under consideration the assessee had purchased goods of Rs. 3,01,65,800/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 828/Ahd/2025 Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19 3 from Bharat Trading Co. The AO, however, held that the said purchases made by the assessee from Bharat Trading Co. were not genuine. The AO, accordingly, passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 23.03.2023 assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,08,62,970/- making the addition relating to bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T.Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,01,65,800/-. 5. During the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee remained non- compliant to all the notices issued and not furnished and supporting documentary evidence/explanation regarding the transactions it had made with Bharat Trading Co. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, confirmed the addition so made by the AO, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee during the year had made the purchases of Rs.58,25,674/- from Bharat Trading Co. and not of Rs.3,01,65,800/- as noted by the lower authorities. He has further submitted that the opening payable to the said concern was Rs.1.92 crores and the amount payable for the purchases made during the year was Rs.58,25,674/- out of which the payment of Rs. 3,01,65,800/- was made during the year and the closing balance payable was Rs.50 lakhs (approx.). The Ld. AR, in this respect, has submitted that the addition of Rs. 3,01,65,800/- was not justified. He has also submitted that all the purchases made by the assessee from Bharat Trading Co. were genuine. He, in this respect, has relied upon the copies of the bills/invoices and the ledger accounts. The Ld. AR has submitted that in the interests of justice, the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 828/Ahd/2025 Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19 4 7. After considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to represent his case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of AO for passing the assessment order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case. It is also directed that the assessee will remain vigilant and promptly respond to the notices of hearing issued by the AO. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 17 /02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member िदनांक/Dated 17/02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS 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 , अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u000f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "