IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.727/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid hearing)

Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 504, Rushabh Residency, बनाम/ Navsari, Income T ax Office, Maneklal Road, Near Vs. Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Telephone Exchange, Navsari- 445

396 445 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AIQPS 6441 P (अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) /Respondent)

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती क(cid:551) ओर से

/Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR राजèव क(cid:551) ओर से /Respondent by Date of Hearing 22/07/2025 सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

उ(cid:622)घोषणा क(cid:551)

तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 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 26.07.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal [in short, the ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 27.10.2017.

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the appeal are as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. AO has erred in reopening assessment u/s.147 by issuing notice u/s.148 of the IT Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.32,53,637/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credits.

3. It is, therefore, prayed that the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) rws 147 may please be quashed.

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 29 days. An application for condonation of the delay was filed, which is supported by an affidavit. It is stated by the assessee that the small delay occurred on account of his failure to check his email. He came to know of the CIT(A) order when his accountant opened his email in the first week of the October when notice u/s.226(3) of the Act was issued and sent by the AO for attaching his bank account. Therefore, it is prayed by the assessee that delay of 29 days in filing appeal may be condoned.

3.1 After hearing both the parties, we note that delay in filing appeal by the appellant is not intentional and deliberated. In view of the same, the request for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 declaring the total income at Rs.1,51,020/-. As per the information available, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.21,84,793/- in his savings bank accounts maintained with the ICICI Bank, deposited cash in his HDFC Bank and Andhra Bank of Rs.3,01,995/- and had credit entries aggregating to Rs.8,30,889/- in his various bank accounts. On verification of the details in ITD system, it was seen that the assessee had not disclosed the aforesaid savings bank account in his ITR-4 filed for the relevant AY. Therefore, case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 22.03.2017 was issued to the assessee. In response to the same, assessee submitted his reply on 22.06.2017 enclosing acknowledgement copy of return of income for the AY 2010-11 along with computation of income. It was mentioned in the aforesaid reply that assessee had maintained four bank accounts during the year under consideration with ICICI Bank, HDFC bank and Andhra Bank. In addition to this, objection was also raised by the assessee against the issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The aforesai