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.126/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid hearing)

Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner of 6^th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod बनाम/ Income-tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Vs. Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAZPJ 4561 G (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 P.M. Jagasheth, CA Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR राजèव क(cid:551) ओर से /Respondent by Date of Hearing 04/08/2025 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 20.01.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, the ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017- 18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019.

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. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.1,21,92,898/- on account of alleged disallowing immunity claimed u/s.2(14) of Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating again as business income, which ground has never been conveyed and/or initiated to respond and revealed through Assessment order only. As no opportunity is afforded either through any notice and/or more importantly under show cause notice about the said ground of addition, it amounts to arbitrary decisions to our belief and against spirit of natural justice.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in finalizing the Assessment proceedings as based on imaginary and wrong interpretation of Section 2(14) of Income tax Act, 1961 upon probability on one hand and by dishonoring supporting evidences upon suspicion and misleading Google images on other hand which amounts to illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed as onus is not discharged in its true spirit to deliver justice.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in justifying and discharging onus on the strength of facts and /or legal ground both in regards to findings for rejecting the immunity u/s 2(14) of Income tax Act, 1961 as well as concluding remarks to support the judgement for addition and simply based on misleading facts and logical ground which do not stand good eyes in law.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceeding u/s.270A(8) r.w.s. 270A(9) of Income tax Act, 1961 for misreporting of income by issuing notice u/s.270A of Income tax Act, 1961.

5. It is, therefore, prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.26,87,190/-. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 16.08.2018. The reasons for scrutiny selection