THAKARSHIBHAI MAKANBHAI GHODASARA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 78/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 August 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with an opportunity for a virtual hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee introduced capital of Rs.78,43,489/-. The Assessing Officer treated Rs.61,05,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without granting a virtual hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without granting a virtual hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 29/07/2026Pronounced: 03/08/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 78/RJT/2026 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Thakarshibhai Makanbhai Ghodasara Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Chaitanya Bunglow No 31, Opp Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Vs. Fulvadi Chowk, Satyasai Road, Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGQPG6667H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03/08/2026

:: ORDER :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’], dated 01.12.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 147 of the Act, dated 16.05.2023.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, is an individual, filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2017–18 declaring a total income of Rs.3,82,490/-

ITA No.78/RJT/2026 Thakarshibhai M. Ghodasara Subsequently, it was noticed that the assessee had introduced capital amounting to Rs.78,43,489/- during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire was also issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted that he was deriving income from job-work activities and was also receiving interest and remuneration from a partnership firm. The assessee furnished details regarding the source of the capital introduced in Rotto Ceramic LLP and explained that the capital had been sourced from amounts received from various parties. Relevant documentary evidence was also furnished. After examining the submissions, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation in respect of a sum of Rs.61,05,000/- and treated the same as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act, adding the said amount to the total income of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer without granting the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing through video conference, despite the assessee having specifically requested for the same.

4.

Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had specifically requested for a hearing through video conference. Despite taking note of the said request, the Ld. CIT(A) did not grant the opportunity of virtual hearing before passing the impugned order. It was, therefore, contended that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside as it has been passed in violation of Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the

Page 2 of 3

ITA No.78/RJT/2026 Thakarshibhai M. Ghodasara provisions of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

5.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the grievance of the assessee regarding denial of an opportunity of personal hearing through video conference has substantial force. The record indicates that the assessee had requested for such hearing; however, no effective opportunity appears to have been granted before disposal of the appeal. In our considered opinion, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, including through video conference, if so requested, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of August 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. BRR Kumar] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] Vice President Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 03/08/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) By order 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot //True Copy//

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →