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

According to brief facts of the case, assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 22.09.2022, declaring income of Rs.49,50,400/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory 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.

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

Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground, in addition to others on merits, that assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.

Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee and learned CIT/DR for revenue.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that Ld. CIT(Appeals) issued 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.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.