Loading judgment…
Facts
For AY 2013-14, the assessee received ₹37,44,600 as share application money. Reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148, but the assessee failed to provide details on the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Assessing Officer consequently treated this amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and completed an ex parte assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147, which was sustained by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte without granting the assessee sufficient opportunity to present its case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This decision applies to appeals for both AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to identical facts and issues.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of share application money as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified when the assessment was completed ex parte, and whether adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee.
Sections Cited
148, 68, 144, 147, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [PAN: AADCG3732B] vs. NFAC, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Manish Agarwal, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 11, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : December 16, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These two appeals are filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013–14 and 2014–15. Since the issues involved, the assessment proceedings, and the additions made are common and on identical issues, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we first take up for assessment year 2013–14, and the findings recorded therein shall mutatis mutandis apply to for assessment year 2014–15.
Brief facts of the case are that, for assessment year 2013–14, the assessee was subjected to reassessment proceedings and notice under Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing alleging that the assessee had received share application money amounting to ₹37,44,600. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices calling upon the assessee to furnish details such as the identity, address, and genuineness of the persons from whom the share application money was received. However, the assessee failed to furnish complete details to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. In view of the same, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to explain the credit appearing in its books of account and invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹37,44,600 was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, due to non-compliance with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, making the aforesaid addition and applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ao assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A) where Ld. AO sustained the assessment order primarily on the ground of non-compliance by the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted to the assessee and prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to enable the assessee to substantiate its claim. On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We, after considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessment has been completed ex parte under section 144 of the Act and the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to present its case. In the interest of Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd natural justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
Since the facts and issues involved in for assessment year 2014–15 are identical to those decided in our findings recorded above shall apply mutatis mutandis to that appeal as well. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 16th December, 2025.