RUDRAKSHA SILVER & GOLD,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 560/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 July 2026AY 2023-243 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's unsatisfactory conduct but, in the interest of justice, granted one final opportunity. This was conditional upon the assessee paying Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund and actively participating in future proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a total income of Rs.1,41,530/-. During scrutiny, large cash deposits, withdrawals, unsecured loans, and unaccounted purchases were observed, leading to an addition of Rs.9,90,43,818/-. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of their appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities despite previous non-compliance, and the consequences of such non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR

For Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)

Hearing: 02/07/2026Pronounced: 06/07/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 560/RJT/2026 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2023-24 ] Rudraksha Silver & Gold Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), 9, Aryanagar, Near Nobal Classics, Nr Rajkot. Vs. Communiti Hall, Pedak Road Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360003, Gujarat Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No AASFR5462R (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 02/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06/07/2026

:: ORDER :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2023-24, 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 Delhi [in short ‘NFAC’], dated 26.02.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.02.2025.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its nature of income for AY 2023-24 declaring a total income of Rs.1,41,530/- and same was processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

ITA No. 560/RJT/2026 Rudraksha Silver and Gold 03. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that there were cash deposit of Rs.8,51,27,250/- and cash withdraws of Rs.19,90,000/- in bank a/c with the Co. Op. Bank of Rajkot Ltd. and total credit entries at Rs.9,58,48,456/- were notice. Additionally, there was a variation in respect of unsecured loans accounting to Rs.24,58,040/- and variation in respect of unaccounted purchase amounting to Rs.5,95,792/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs.9,90,43,818/- was made to the total income of the assessee.

Dissatisfied with the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, due to repeated failure of the assessee to participate in proceedings despite several opportunities being granted, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the this tribunal. At the time of hearing before the bench, the Ld. AR submitted that the orders passed by the lower authorities were ex parte orders and requested that one more opportunity be granted by restoring the matter back to the lower authority.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the assessee had huge financial transactions during the year which were not properly disclosed. It was further contended that the assessee repeatedly failed to participate in proceedings and had consumed valuable judicial time. Therefore, the appeal deserved dismissal and costs should be imposed.

We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and considering the material available on record, the we observed that the conduct of the assessee was

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 560/RJT/2026 Rudraksha Silver and Gold not satisfactory and that the assessee had failed to cooperate with the tax authorities and discharge tax obligations properly. However, considering the interest of justice, we restored the matter by granting one final opportunity to the assessee subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000 upon the assessee, which was directed to be deposited towards the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, and proof of such payment was required to be produced before the Assessing Officer. The assessee was further directed to cooperate and actively participate in proceedings. The Tribunal also clarified that in the event of failure to deposit the prescribed costs, the appeal itself may be treated as dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 06/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →