PREETI GUPTA LEGAL HEIR DINESH GUPTA,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 352/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Preeti Gupta, Legal Heir Dinesh Vs. Income-tax Officer, Gupta,115, Najhai Bazar, Jhansi. Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. PAN : AQGPG8155L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 20.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.12.2025

ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10418055 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250

of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte.

ITA No.352/Agr/2025

notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon

the assessee. Assessee submitted his response before the ld. Assessing

Officer. After considering the assessee’s response, learned Assessing

Officer found that the assessee did not account for any making charges

for transferring higher weight gold bar to one lower weight gold bar. The

making charges varied from 10% to 25% per gram of the gold value. Sale

of the assessee is Rs.196,09,48,491/-. Hence,, according to the learned

Assessing Officer, the making charges might be of any amount between

Rs.19,60,94,850/- to Rs.49,02,37,122/-. Assessee did not account for the

making charges from the seller in his account, hence, Assessing Officer

proposed to add 10% of the making charges. Assessee was show

caused to explain as to why such addition be not made. After considering

the assessee’s response against the show cause notice issued by the

Assessing Officer, finally 2% was considered on the assumption as the

difference payments towards making charges/melting charges made and

collected by the assessee. Hence, 2% of the total sale of

Rs.196,09,48,491/- to the extent of Rs.3,92,18,970/- was treated as

undisclosed income of the assessee from business and added to the

income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 29.02.2024.

CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.352/Agr/2025

addition to others on merits, that assessee was not provided sufficient

opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.

assessee and learned CIT/DR for revenue.

notices to the assessee on 06.03.2025, 17.03.2025, 20.03.2025,

04.04.2025 and 28.05.2025. Assessee failed to submit any written

submission or reply before the learned first appellate authority. The

reluctant attitude of the assessee made the ld. CIT(Appeals) to pass ex

parte order. In such facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice,

we deem it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity of hearing to the

assessee. The matter is accordingly restored back to the file of learned

CIT(A), who shall pass the order afresh after considering the assessee’s

submissions. We direct the assessee to be cooperative in attending the

hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the

expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A)

shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The

appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.352/Agr/2025

The impugned order dated 12.06.2025 is set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08.12.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e