IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.07/RJT/2026 Assessment Year: (2015-16)

(Physical Hearing)

Nileshkumar M. Bhalodi, Vs. ITO, Madhav Residency Third Floor, Block Ward – 2(1)(1), No.302, Rajkot - 360001 Rajkot PAN/GIR No.: AJUPB8323Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Ms Devina Patel, AR राज(cid:738) की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/02/2026 आदेश /ORDER Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], dated 11.11.2025, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023.

2. Although, this appeal filed by the Assessee, for Assessment Year 2015-16, contains multiple ground of appeals. However, at the time of hearing we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Assessee. We find that most of the grounds raised by the Assessee, are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the Assessee. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act without appreciating that there was no valid "reason to believe" and the mandatory conditions laid down u/s 147/148 were not satisfied and assessed the total income of Rs.51,31,508/- as against the Returned Income of Rs.3,30,530/-, which is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law and liable to be quashed.

3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee had filed (income tax return) ITR for the AY 2015-16, declaring total income of Rs.3,30,530/-. Later on, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 25/07/2022 requesting to file return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2022, declaring total income of Rs.3,30,530/- for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16 which is same as in the original ITR filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, dated 23.06.2017.

4. In this case, the information was received by the assessing officer from the Investigation Wing, which suggests that the assessee had two bank accounts maintained with Axis Bank bearing A/c No.: 9150100294731338 913020001527257 in the name of Shri Nilesh Mansukhlal Bhalodi and in the name of M/s N.S. Consulting respectively. During the FY 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, a total amount of Rs.3,39,83,971/- is found to have been deposited in the bank account of the assessee. It culminated into escapement of income of Rs.3,39,83,971/- as in order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, dated 22.07.2022, resulting in issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 25.07.2022.

During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer also noticed that amount of Rs.2,60,28,257/- also has escaped from assessment. Therefore, assessing officer issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain these transactions.

5. In response to the notices of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer, along with documentary evidences on 23.01.2023. Again the notice was issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 13.01.2023 by the assessing officer, and against this notice, the assessee has submitted detailed reply before the assessing officer.

6. However, the assessing officer has rejected the reply o