GURU-G-TEX PRINT PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 314/SRT/2026Status: PendingITAT Surat28 October 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had issued notices of hearing/compliance, the details of service of these notices were not provided to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed details before the AO, which were also available before the CIT(A), but these were not considered. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper consideration and verification of the details. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the matter on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice. The issue of the validity of the addition under Section 68 was not decided on merits by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Guru-G-Tex Print Private Limited, is a private limited company engaged in textile fabric trading. For Assessment Year 2012-13, its case was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) sought details regarding share capital receipts totaling Rs. 10,42,88,000/-. Despite the assessee submitting complete details, the AO made an addition of this amount under Section 68, deeming the reply unacceptable. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal for want of response. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,42,88,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified, considering the assessee's submissions. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 68). Assessee's contentions: The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not considering the submissions filed by the appellant before the AO and the appellate authority. The order passed by the CIT(A) without considering these submissions is bad in law and should be set aside. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Personal hearing should be granted. Revenue's contentions: The Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

Pronounced: 28.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.314/SRT/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) GURU-G-TEX PRINT PRIVATE ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT LIMITED ROOM # 111, 38, DIAMOND NAGAR, OPP. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, Vs. MIRANAGAR, VARACHHA ROAD, MAJURAGATE, SURAT-395006, GUJARAT SURAT-395002, GUJARAT अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AADCG5545Q

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Suresh K Kabra, CA प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 19.08.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 28.10.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 09.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.10,42,88,000/- u/s 68 without considering the submission filed by the appellant vide Ack No Re 01042114595930 dated 01/04/2021 and dismissing the appeal for want of response from the appellant. 2.1 The Order by the CIT(A)-NFAC without considering the submission is bad in law and may be kindly set aside and quashed.

ITA No.314/SRT/2026 (A.Y. 2012-13) GURU-G-TEX PRINT PRIVATE LIMITED 2.2 The addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC may be kindly deleted. 2.3 Personal hearing may be granted. Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. 2.4. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the trading of textiles fabrics. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3). During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (in short the “AO”) had asked for details with respect to receipt of amount towards Share Capital as under: Name of the No of Shares Amount @ Rs Share Premium Total Amount Investor 10/- @Rs 90/- @Rs 100/- ALPESH 46,900 4,69,000 42,21,000 46,90,000 BODRA JAGDISH 2,30,000 23,00,000 2,07,00,000 2,30,00,000 BODRA SANGITA 3,40,000 34,00,000 3,06,00,000 3,40,00,000 BODRA RAMESH 1,50,000 15,00,000 1,35,00,000 1,50,00,000 BODRA SUNIL BODRA 1,63,330 16,33,300 1,46,99,700 1,63,33,000 URMILA 1,12,650 1,12,650 1,01,38,500 1,12,65,000 BODRA (Four Square Future) TOTAL 10,42,880 1,04,28,800 9,38,59,200 10,42,88,000

The AO had issued show cause as to why such receipts of Share Capital may not be added u/s 68 to the total income. The assessee submitted complete details, which is incorporated in the assessment order. However, the AO being predetermined made the addition u/s 68 of Rs.10,42,88,000/- considering the reply is not acceptable. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

ITA No.314/SRT/2026 (A.Y. 2012-13) GURU-G-TEX PRINT PRIVATE LIMITED

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “the Ld. AR”) submitted that the CIT(A) has not at all considered the details filed before the AO as well as before the appellate authority. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested that the matter maybe remanded back to the file of the CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A), though issued the notice of hearing/compliance, has not given the details of service of these notices to the assessee. The assessee filed the details before the AO which were before the CIT(A) as well but the same were not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper consideration/verification of the details and adjudicate the same on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 28.10.2026 //True Copy// * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent

ITA No.314/SRT/2026 (A.Y. 2012-13) GURU-G-TEX PRINT PRIVATE LIMITED 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order, Digitally signed by HEMA KISHORE HEMA KISHORE JAKKA JAKKA Date: 2026.10.30 15:17:21 +05'30' Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →