Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Bhagya Gold Limited, filed its return for AY 2016-17 declaring an income of Rs. 67,030/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1.94 Crores under Section 68 for unexplained unsecured loans. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte after multiple opportunities were not responded to.
Held
The Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice, directed the AO to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for hearing to explain the unsecured loans addition, despite previous non-compliance.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar
ORDER PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 12-12-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in gold. For the A.Y. 2016-17, the A.Y. 2016-17 2 Bhagya Gold Limited Vs. ITO assessee filed its return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.67,030/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The AO also found a sum of Rs.1.94 Crores credited in the books of accounts as unsecured loans in the name of Gayatri Corporation, which was unexplained and assessee failed to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, whereby made addition u/s.68 of the Act and demanded tax thereon.
Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given five opportunities of hearing, which was not responded by the assessee, which has resulted in passing ex-parte dismissal order.
Against which, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice.
2. Assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is void, illegal and without jurisdiction as no order passed U/s 127 of the Act.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made U/S 68 of the Act by the Ld. A.O, of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit.
4. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.”
Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee could not dispute the several opportunities given by the lower authorities, however, requested to give one more opportunity of hearing to explain its case before the AO.
We have heard rival contentions and materials available on record. To meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the assessee, to the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order and produce the challan for payment of cost before the Jurisdictional AO (‘JAO’). Thereby, the JAO is directed to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say, that the assessee should cooperate by filing all necessary documents before the JAO without taking any adjournment.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11-03-2026