IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.1342/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12)

(Hybrid Hearing)

Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Vs. ITO, Plot No.97, Laxmi Society, Gajera Circle – 3(3)(3), School Road,Behind Gajera School, Surat Katargam, Surat - 395006 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ADLPP8388A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Ms Jayashree Thakur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 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 22.10.2024, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in re-opening the assessment u/s.

147 and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the addition of Rs.11,01,115/-on account of alleged bogus purchase credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levies interest u/s

234A/234B/234C/234D of the 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 his return of income for AY.2011-12 on 07.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs.10,97,650/-. A search and seizure action was conducted on 03.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on Rajendra Jain group, Sanjay Chaudhari group and Dharmichand group. It was found that the said groups through various benami concerns and their employees were providing accommodation entries of unsecured loans and bogus purchases to various beneficiaries. On examination of information, it was found that the assessee indulged in non-genuine transactions of Rs.44,04,458/- during the year under consideration from the concerns of the above groups. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2018. In response to which, assessee filed return of income, disclosing the original income. Thereafter, the reasons for re-opening was given to the assessee. The assessee subsequently filed a reply, which was considered by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) but was not accepted. He added 25% of the bogus purchase of Rs.44,04,758/- from these concerns, amounting to Rs.11,01,115/-, to the total income. The total income was determined at Rs.21,98,770/- against the returned income of Rs.10,97,658/-. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued three notices, which were not complied with. Thereafter, the CIT(A) has extracted the assessment order and confirmed the addition made by the AO.

5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has f