MALAY ADDHYA,BONGAON vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 81,83,464/- being the alleged difference in the market value and the stamp duty value by wrongly invoking the provision of sec 56(2)(x) of the Act

Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the AO has not referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuation of the property which is a gross negligence on the part of the AO

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,95,000/-, the alleged cash payment for the purchase of the property, by invoking the provision of sec 69B of the Act

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 53,552/- being 10% of the total expenses incurred by the assessee

The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal” I.T.A. No.: 1234/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Malay Addhya.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income showing total income of ₹5,50,250/- after claiming deduction of ₹3,624/- u/s 80TTA of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee for filing certain details, viz. copy of computation of total income, detailed note on the business/profession and various revenue stream carried out by the assessee, brief details of tax assessments for the last three years, details of bank accounts and copy of bank statements of all accounts etc. Several opportunities were provided to the assessee but since the assessee did not fully respond to the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') added certain variations to the returned income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹1,13,72,266/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 21.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the sole ground of delay in filing the appeal despite the assessee having been provided several opportunities to the assessee to submit tenable evidence in support of the delay and the failure of the assessee to do so.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that a single notice was issued and the appeal has been dismissed on account of delay while the merits of the case have not been discussed. The reason for the delay is I.T.A. No.: 1234/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Malay Addhya. mentioned as the medical illness, the assessee suffering from chest pain and was advised complete bed rest by the doctor during the month of March 2025. The assessee was unaware of any memo dated 01/03/2025 being served with respect to the proceeding before the Ld. CIT(A) and no notice under section 250 of the Act was issued or received in the email ID mentioned while filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is stated in the affidavit that the assessee came to know on 20/05/2025 that an order dated 21/03/2025 was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and has also given an undertaking that proper compliance would be made in case the above-mentioned matter is restored back to the lower authority by the Tribunal. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons mentioned, in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Further, after examining the facts of the case and the law, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have been condoned as the assessee had sufficient cause. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed I.T.A. No.: 1234/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Malay Addhya. and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th October, 2025. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28.10.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 1234/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Malay Addhya. Copy of the order forwarded to:

Malay Addhya, Shimultala Bongaon, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, 743235. 2. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order