MODULE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2),, KOLKATA

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.06.2025, passed by the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-2021.

It was the submission of the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment has brought to tax the difference between the stamp value and the agreement value in respect of development agreement entered into by the assessee, wherein the value has been taken as nominal figures of Rs.4/-, Rs.6/- and Rs.3/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer himself recognizes that these are supplementary agreements, development agreements, gift deeds and power of attorneys. It was the submission that no transfer of any property has taken place. It was the submission that the AO took the presumption that there were transfer of property. It was the submission that the assessee has responded to the various notices issued, insofar as the ld.AR drew our attention to page 2A and 2B of the paper book which are the copies of the statement uploaded by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as also page 85 of the paper book which was the copy of the further details i.e. development agreement, power attorneys and gift deeds. It was the further submission that on appeal before the ld.CIT(A), as the counsel office was being shifted, adjournment application has been filed and in the adjournment application the assessee had sought for a short time and without considering the adjournment application the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that all the details having been produced before the assessing authority and the specific adjournment application having been filed before the ld.CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-representation. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of ld.AO for readjudication.

Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini, reported in [2017] 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC), to support his statement that whether the Joint Development Agreements were entered into for want of permissions and for the development of land, there would be no profit or gains which arose in respect of transfer of capital asset. The relevant portion of the Head Note in the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme is as follows :- Section 2(47), read with sections 45 and 48, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains -Transfer (Joint Development Agreement) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisaged in Joint Development Agreement (JDA) fell through, there would be no profit or gain which arose from transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under section 45, read with section 48 - Held, yes [Para 27] [In favour of assessee] 4. In reply, ld.CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case so also the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee has responded to the various notices sent to the assessee. It is only with regard to one of the notices there has been non-representation alleged by the Assessing Officer that too to the show cause notice. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) shows that the ld.CIT(A) has not granted the adjournment and has held the issues against the assessee for non-representation. A perusal of the adjournment application filed on 13.06.2025 shows that the assessee has sought time before the ld. CIT(A) to 17.06.2025 and the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide an order dated 13.06.2025. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.AO for reajudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2025.