---

UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C.
20549

FORM 10-K/A(Amendment No.
1)

[ x ] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012

[   ] TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _______ to _______

Commission file number 001-12974

SANTA FE GOLD
CORPORATION(Exact name of registrant as specified in its
charter)

|Delaware                                         | 84-1094315         
|------------------------------------------------ | -------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of                  | (I.R.S. Employer   
|incorporation or organization)                   | Identification No.)
|                                                 |                    
|1128 Pennsylvania NE, Suite 200, Albuquerque, NM | 87110              
|(Address of principal executive offices)         | (Zip Code)         

(505) 255-4852(Registrant's telephone number,
including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common stock, $.002 par value(Title of
class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. 
Yes [   ] No [ x
]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to
file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. 
Yes [   ] No [ x ]

Indicate by check mark whether the issuer (1) filed all reports
required to be filed by Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days. 
Yes [ x ] No [   ]

Indicate by checkmark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not
contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by
reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.[ x
]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller
reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated filer,
accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act.

|Large accelerated filer [   ] | Accelerated filer [ x ]         
|----------------------------- | --------------------------------
|Non-accelerated filer [   ]   | Smaller reporting company
 [   ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell
company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).Yes [   ] No [ x ]

The aggregate market value of the Common Stock of Santa Fe Gold
Corporation held by non-affiliates as of the last business day of the
registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter was $89,236,672.

As of September 28, 2012, there were 117,537,970 shares of
common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:None.

---

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Santa Fe Gold Corporation (we,
our or the Company) is filing this Amendment No. 1 to its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, which was originally filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 28, 2012. This Amendment No. 1 to
Form 10-K should be read in conjunction with the Form 10-K and the Companys
subsequent reports filed with the SEC. Except for the information specifically
amended and restated herein, this form 10-K/A has not been updated to reflect
events, results or developments that occurred after the date of the original
Form 10-K nor does it change any other disclosures contained in the original
Form 10-K.

This Amendment No. 1 incorporates
amendments to our Form 10-K as follows:

PART I

|ITEM 2. | PROPERTIES
|------- | ----------

Summit Silver-Gold Project

Ore Reserve

Chapman, Wood and Griswold, Inc.
(CWG), an independent geological engineering firm, carried out studies and
reviews of the mineral classification of Summit mineralization. In February
2010, CWG concluded that a portion of the mineralized material in the footwall
zone can be classified as a Probable Reserve under the SECs Industry Guide 7.

The Company revised the CWG
reserve estimate as of June 30, 2012 by removing the volume of material mined
originally estimated from each individual hole used for the original reserve
calculation. This method automatically adjusts the grade of the remaining
reserve. The mineral reserve as of June 30, 2012 is estimated as follows:

Probable Reserve (Footwall
      Zone)Tons
    
    
    Grade
      (oz/ton)(1)
    
    
    Contained ouncesAu
    
    
    Ag
    
    
    Au
    
    
    AgInplace, diluted(2)(3)
    
    573,890
    
    
    0.148
    
    
    10.74
    
    
    84,936
    
    
    6,163,579Minable @ 90% extraction
    
    516,501
    
    
    0.148
    
    
    10.74
    
    
    76,442
    
    
    5,547,221Ounces in conc. at 80% rec.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    61,154
    
    
    4,437,777


2

---

|(1) | Assays cut to 0.45 oz Au/t and 45.0 oz Ag/ton                                                                                            
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | Diluted with 1.0 foot at grade on each wall. Minimum
      6.0-foot horizontal width.                                                    
|(3) | Cutoff grade 0.16 oz Au equivalent per ton, using a 60:1
      gold-silver price ratio and equivalent recoveries for gold and
    silver.

Operating Results

Ongoing development has resulted
in increased production of mineralized material from the Summit mine. Resulting
materials processed through the Banner mill or shipped as smelter flux for
fiscal year 2012 (July 2011 through June 2012) totaled 54,679 dry tons averaging
4.55 opt (ounces per ton) Ag and 0.080 opt Au. Approximately 45% of this
production was derived from the S-1 and S-2 stoping areas, and the remainder
came from development drifts in the S-1 and N-1 areas.

Production for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 is
summarized as follows:

|Material
      Destination                |  | Dry
      Tons |  |  | opt
      Ag |  |  | opt
      Au | 
|----------------------------------------- |  | -------------- |  |  | ------------ |  |  | ------------ | 
|                                          |  |                |  |  |              |  |  |              | 
|Asarco Smelter (Hayden AZ)                |  | 12,016         |  |  | 5.42         |  |  | 0.081        | 
|Freeport McMoran Smelter (Miami AZ)       |  | 12,605         |  |  | 4.45         |  |  | 0.081        | 
|Banner Mill (Lordsburg NM)                |  | 30,057         |  |  | 4.24         |  |  | 0.079        | 
|                                          |  |                |  |  |              |  |  |              | 
|Total Production July 2011 thru June 2012 |  | 54,678         |  |  | 4.55         |  |  | 0.080        | 

Total production from inception
in 2010 through the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 is summarized as
follows:

|Material
      Destination                |  | Dry
      Tons |  |  | opt
      Ag |  |  | opt
      Au | 
|----------------------------------------- |  | -------------- |  |  | ------------ |  |  | ------------ | 
|                                          |  |                |  |  |              |  |  |              | 
|Asarco Smelter (Hayden AZ)                |  | 17,141         |  |  | 5.92         |  |  | 0.085        | 
|Freeport McMoran Smelter (Miami AZ)       |  | 14,878         |  |  | 4.54         |  |  | 0.078        | 
|Banner Mill (Lordsburg NM)                |  | 59,023         |  |  | 4.02         |  |  | 0.070        | 
|                                          |  |                |  |  |              |  |  |              | 
|Total Production July 2010 thru June 2012 |  | 91,011         |  |  | 4.46         |  |  | 0.074        | 

The Banner mill produces a
flotation concentrate which during fiscal year 2012 was shipped to the Aurubis
smelter in Germany. During the fiscal year, 181.2 tons of concentrate were sold
to Aurubis with a total payable metal content (after smelter payment deductions)
of 1,413 ounces of gold and 80,299 ounces of silver. The total flux shipments of
24,621 tons yielded 1,299 ounces of payable gold and 103,548 ounces of payable
silver. Combined metal production was 2,712 ounces of payable gold and 183,847
ounces of payable silver.

Ortiz Gold Project

Overview

In August 2004, Santa Fe acquired
exclusive rights for exploration, development and mining of gold and other
minerals on 57,267 acres (approximately 90 square miles) of the Ortiz Mine Grant
in Santa Fe County, New Mexico. In November 2007, we relinquished 14,970 acres
and retained under lease 42,297 acres (66 square miles).

In December 2005, using
historical estimations of mineralized material, we received the results of an
independent scoping study for the open pit mining of approximately 1.0 million
ounces of gold from the Carache and Lucas gold deposits. The study assessed
various processing options for development and provided estimations of capital
and operating costs for each option. The report concluded that the financial
results indicated a favorable gold project employing high pressure grinding
rolls with gravity recovery and contract mining. The report also stated that
considerable upside existed in estimations of mineralized material in both contained ounces and grade. We currently have not established
proven or probable reserves on the Ortiz gold property.

3

---

We plan to proceed with studies
necessary to advance the Ortiz project. This work will include an assessment of
the historical mineralized material calculated from previous drilling,
metallurgical testing and design of conceptual open pits for the Carache and
Lucas deposits. This work will form the basis for further evaluation of mining
and processing options and a preliminary economic assessment. We also intend to
begin an assessment of permitting and environmental issues, which would be
important for any mining development.

History of Mining and
Exploration

Prospecting and mining of gold
and silver in the Ortiz area dates to the arrival of the first European
(Spanish) settlers in 1598. Significant gold production from Ortiz placers dates
to 1821. By 1832 several veins and low-grade gold deposits had been discovered.
In 1833 the Ortiz Land Grant, an area about 10.7 miles square centered on the
Ortiz gold vein, was registered and possession given by the First Alcade of the
City of Santa Fe. By the early 1840s, mining at the small underground Ortiz
Mine had ceased. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, sporadic attempts at
commercial mining of lode and placer gold deposits were unsuccessful due to lack
of water and/or low grades. Total pre-1980 mine production has been estimated as
about 100,000 ounces of gold.

The entire Grant was validated by
the United States in 1860 under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
The owners received fee simple title to the surface and minerals and the area
became known as the Ortiz Mine Grant. Subsequently the Grant changed hands and
the surface was sold subject to reservation of the mineral estate. In 1959 the
mineral-interest owners and associates formed Ortiz Mines, Inc. for the purpose
of promoting and marketing the mineral estate.

In 1973, Consolidated Gold Fields
leased the eastern portion of the Grant from Ortiz Mines, Inc. and developed and
mined the Cunningham Hill deposit (Ortiz Mine). In the period 1980-1986, Gold
Fields produced approximately 250,000 ounces of gold from an open-pit,
heap-leach operation.

From 1972 through the early
1990s, several companies operating under lease with Ortiz Mines, Inc. carried
out exploration and pre-development activities in the western portion of the
Grant. These companies included Conoco, Inc., LAC Minerals (USA), Inc. and the
LAC-Pegasus Joint Venture. Expenditures by these groups are estimated to have
exceeded $40 million. Drilling resulted in the identification of gold
mineralization in several deposits.

The LAC-Pegasus Joint Venture
carried out the majority of the work in the western portion of the Grant, from
1989-1992. The Joint Venture focused on gold mineralization in two deposits in
the southwestern part of the Grant, namely the Carache Canyon (Carache) and
Lucas Canyon (Lucas) deposits. These two deposits were the subject of 386,000
feet of core and reverse-circulation drilling, metallurgical testing and
pre-feasibility studies carried out by the LAC-Pegasus Joint Venture and by
consulting firms and contractors engaged by the Joint Venture.

Independent Mining Consultants,
Inc. (IMC), an independent geological engineering firm, was engaged by the
LAC-Pegasus Joint Venture to audit estimations of the quantities and grades of
in-place mineralized material at the Carache and Lucas deposits and to prepare
conceptual open pit mine plans. IMC used indicator kriging as the estimation
method. In 1992, IMC estimated the Carache gold deposit to contain mineralized
material of 11.0 million tons grading 0.058 ounces of gold per ton. IMC
estimated the Lucas gold deposit to contain mineralized material of 12.7 million
tons grading 0.033 ounces of gold per ton.

Under SEC Guideline 7, proven and
probable reserves have not been established on the Ortiz deposits. All of the
mineralization described above is referred to as mineralized material.
Mineralized material constitutes a mineralized body that has been delineated by
one or more of a number of methods, including drilling, underground work,
surface trenching and other types of sampling to establish continuity and
support an estimate of tonnage and average grade of the selected metal.
Mineralized material does not include tonnages or grades estimated using
geologic inference. A deposit of mineralized material does not qualify as a
reserve until a comprehensive evaluation based upon unit costs, grade,
recoveries and other factors concludes economic and legal feasibility.

4

---

In 1989, the LAC-Pegasus Joint
Venture started a decline adit into the Carache deposit for the purpose of bulk
sampling and to provide drilling access for shallow and deep exploration
targets. However, after advancing 1719 feet the decline was halted due to a
temporary water inflow coupled with regulatory issues. In the face of a
declining gold price, mining development of the Carache or Lucas deposits did
not proceed, and the project ultimately was cancelled and the lease returned to
Ortiz Mines, Inc. Subsequently, no additional exploration was carried out and
the property remained dormant until we leased it in August 2004.

Scoping Study of the Carache and
Lucas Gold Deposits

In October 2005, we commissioned
Mineral Advisory Group, LLC (MAG) of Tucson, Arizona, an independent
geological engineering firm, to carry out an engineering review and scoping
study of the Carache and Lucas gold deposits, utilizing as a technical base the
information generated by the LAC-Pegasus Joint Venture in 1989-1991. MAGs
study, which was completed in December 2005, assessed various processing options
for development and provided estimations of capital and operating costs for each
option.

The MAG report was prepared in
accordance with different standards than those prescribed by rules of the SEC.
The SEC only permits the disclosure of proven or probable reserves, which in
turn, require the preparation of a feasibility study demonstrating the economic
feasibility of mining and processing the mineralized material. We have not
received a feasibility study with regard to our Ortiz property. We currently
have not established proven or probable reserves on the Ortiz property.

The processing options MAG
analyzed included heap leaching, ball milling/gravity concentration, and high
pressure grinding rolls/gravity concentration (HPGR option). The optimum
processing route was identified as the HPGR option. The HPGR option was
estimated to be able to achieve gold recovery employing simple gravity
concentration while minimizing capital and operating costs. As compared to heap
leaching (the processing route previously advanced by the LAC-Pegasus Joint
Venture), the HPGR option also potentially would have advantages with respect to
environmental disturbance and permitting in that the area of surface disturbance
would be smaller, chemicals would not be required in processing and there would
be less water usage.

MAGs report concluded, The
financial conclusions drawn from this study indicate a very favorable project
employing High Pressure Grinding Rolls with gravity recovery and contract
mining. The report also stated that upside exists in estimations of mineralized
material in both contained ounces of gold and grade, as had been concluded
previously by the LAC-Pegasus Joint Venture.

Under SEC Guideline 7, proven and
probable reserves have not been established on the Ortiz deposits. All of the
mineralization described above is referred to as mineralized material.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate
Governance.

On October 11, 2012, Santa Fe
entered a Binding Heads of Agreement to pursue a business combination with
International Goldfields Limited, an Australian corporation (IGS). On February
15, 2013, Santa Fe entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger
Agreement) with IGS. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, a newly-formed
and wholly-owned subsidiary of IGS will be merged with and into Santa Fe, with
Santa Fe becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of IGS (the Merger).

5

---

Under Delaware law, the Merger
requires the approval of Santa Fes shareholders. In this regard, Santa Fe and
IGS are in the process of preparing a Registration Statement on Form F-4 for
filing with the Commission. The Form F-4 will be both a proxy statement of SFEG
and a prospectus of IGS. It will be a proxy statement of SFEG because the SFEG
board of directors will be soliciting proxies from its stockholders to vote on
the proposal to approve and adopt the Merger Agreement at a special meeting of
its stockholders. The Merger Agreement provides that upon the approval by the
Santa Fe stockholders and consummation of the merger, Santa Fe stockholders
would own IGS ADRs. As such, upon consummation of the merger, Santa Fe
stockholders would no longer own any Santa Fe shares. Given the impact of this
pending transaction and the anticipated special meeting, Santa Fe has been
preparing a Form F-4 to be used in connection with a required special meeting of
its stockholders and have not held an annual meeting as required by Delaware
law.

Under Delaware law, a failure to
hold the annual meeting at the designated time or to elect a sufficient number
of directors to conduct the business of the corporation shall not affect
otherwise valid corporate acts or work a forfeiture or dissolution of the
corporation. Further, Delaware law provides that if the annual meeting for
election of directors is not held on the date designated therefor, the directors
shall cause the meeting to be held as soon as is convenient. Because, for the
reasons noted above, Santa Fe has not held its annual meeting for a period of 13
months after its last annual meeting, the Delaware Court of Chancery may
summarily order a meeting to be held upon the application of any stockholder or
director.

Should (a) Santa Fe elect to
terminate the Merger Agreement or (b) Santa Fe and IGS be unable to file the
Form F-4 within a reasonable period of time, Santa Fe will promptly file its
Proxy Statement and notice of annual meeting of stockholders.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized, on March 22, 2013.

| | SANTA FE GOLD CORPORATION
| | -------------------------
| |                          
| | By:                      
| | Name:                    
| | Title:                   

Pursuant to the requirements of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the
following persons on behalf of the registrant in the capacities indicated on
March 22, 2013.

|SIGNATURE               | TITLE                               
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                        |                                     
|                        |                                     
|/s/ W. Pierce Carson    | Chairman of the Board, President and
|W. Pierce Carson        | Chief Executive Officer             
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer)       
|                        |                                     
|/s/ Michael P. Martinez | Chief Financial Officer             
|Michael P. Martinez     | (Principal Accounting Officer)      
|                        |                                     
|/s/ Ryan P. Carson      | Secretary and Assistant Treasurer   
|Ryan P. Carson          |                                     
|                        |                                     
|/s/ John E. Frost       | Director                            
|John E. Frost           |                                     

|                |         
|--------------- | --------
|/s/ Erich Hofer | Director
|Erich Hofer     |         

6

---