YUNUSH MALLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 61(3),, KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1990/KOL/2025
(Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-2018)
Yunush Mallick

114, Type-II, CRPF Campus,
Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kol-91. Vs
ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata
PAN No. :ACGPY2435D
(अपीलाथȸ /Appellant)
..
(Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent)

Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by :
None
राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by :
Pampa Ray, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing
:
03/11/2025
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement
:
04/11/2025

आदेश / O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JM :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC dated 23.06.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (‘Act’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual employee, filed the original return of income for the relevant assessment year declaring total income in accordance with law.
Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Department that the assessee had purchased an immovable property jointly/apparently at a price lower than the fair market value as per stamp duty
Yunush Mallick

2
valuation.
Accordingly, the Assessing
Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144, making the following additions:

₹10,75,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act; and ₹26,01,610 as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

The total income was thus determined at ₹43,40,360 as against the returned income.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned
CIT(A). The CIT(A), after considering the matter, deleted the addition of ₹10,75,000 relating to investment in the property, but sustained the addition of ₹26,01,610 made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act as income from other sources.
4. The assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal.
From the records, it is seen that although notices were issued to the assessee, there was no appearance during the hearing.
Considering the nature of the addition and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the issue requires fresh examination. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this limited issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing
Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Yunush Mallick

3
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/11/2025. (SANJAY AWASTHI) (SONJOY SARMA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ǒदनांक Dated: 04/11/2025
RS

आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

(