ASR COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED,BOTAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1 , BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 1590/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 October 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper communication with the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence confirming the update of its email ID to asrbotad@gmail.com and that notices were sent to the previous consultant's email address. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after considering the grounds of appeal and passing a speaking order in accordance with the law. The addition of Rs. 1,48,67,683/- was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, ASR Cotton Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2023-24. The NFAC had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee contended that it was not aware of the hearing dates before the NFAC due to a change in consultant and an incorrect email ID being used for communication. The ITAT noted that notices were sent to the previous consultant's email ID, while the assessee had updated its contact details to asrbotad@gmail.com. The amount in dispute, Rs. 1,48,67,683/-, was mentioned as an addition confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, was justified in passing an ex-parte order, thereby defying natural justice to the appellant, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant was given three opportunities and was not aggrieved with the assessment order or interested in prosecuting the appeal? 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,48,67,683/- by treating sales receipts as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that it was not aware of the hearing dates before the CIT(A) because of a change in consultant and the subsequent update of its email ID to asrbotad@gmail.com. Notices were sent to the previous consultant's email ID. The assessee relied on acknowledgements of updated contact details and the Appeal Form No. 35, which listed the correct email ID. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the basic facts of the matter and the grounds of appeal, thus defying natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GANGADHAR PANDA

For Appellant: Ms. Bhumika P. Kapadia, AR, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 30/09/2026Pronounced: 13/10/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 13.02.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24. ITA No.1590/Ahd/2026 [ASR Cotton Private Limited vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2023-24 - 2 – 2.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →