RANADEB DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD 44(2), KOLKATA

That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,96,746/- u/s69A of the on record. Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts, evidence and submissions 3. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,96,746/-u/s 69A without verifying the development agreement (Deed No. 1-30082013 dt. 16.08.2013), which proves Appellant's share as only Rs. 2,50,000-2,58,400/-out of 16 co-owners' 40% from Rs. 2,28,76,750/- total, below basic exemption limit; ignoring clause 11 shifting tax liability to developer GNS NirmanPvt. Ltd 4. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence without considering Appellant's non-compliance stemmed from ex-parte proceedings and illness; Rule 46A is directory, not mandatory, where natural justice is violated and evidence is crucial, as held in CIT v. P.M. Bagchi 188 ITR 759 (SC). 5. That the authorities below failed to appreciate that the property was jointly owned by 16 co-owners and the appellant's proportionate share was only Rs. 2,58,400/-, which is below the taxable limit. 6. That the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the Development Agreement dated 16.08.2013, which clearly provides that tax liability, if any, on sale consideration was to be borne by the developer and not by the owners. 7. BECAUSE the finding u/s 69A treating entire Rs. 50,96,746/- as Appellant's unexplained money is perverse, ignoring material evidence of proportionate share and bank receipts <Rs. 3 lakhs; AO/CIT(A) failed to inquire into source/explanation, rendering addition invalid per CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC). 8. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not directing remand for fresh inquiry into agreement, bank details, and clause 11, despite first-stage appellate jurisdiction u/s 250(6). 9. That the addition has been made merely on the basis of information available with the department, without conducting proper inquiry and without granting effective opportunity of being heard. 10. BECAUSE the assessment u/s 144 is bad in law for violating principles of natural justice; despite multiple notices, no effective opportunity or personal hearing was granted amid Appellant's health issues and portal difficulties (delay in Form 35 condoned on similar grounds); repeated notices alone do not cure non-audialterampartem, per PCIT v. Shree Sawai Manoharlal Rathi (2024-VIL-107-SCD) 11. That the assessee framed u/s 144 and the consequent addition are unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete or substitute any of the foregoing grounds at or before the hearing.” 2. In this case, the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 01.04.2021. Thereafter, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 after following due procedure notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 19.07.2022 after following due procedure and various opportunities were granted to the assessee as per information with the income tax department, the assessee had escaped income of Rs. 50,96,746/- since various opportunities were granted to the assessee and finally show cause notice was also issued to the assessee but there was no any response from the assessee side. Accordingly, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act assessing the income of Rs. 50,96,746/-. Considering the entire sale consideration as income u/s 69A of the Act and completed the order on 25.04.2023.