KRISHNA PADA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 25(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 510/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 August 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of justice, and considering the documents now submitted by the assessee's representative, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, consider all relevant documents, and pass a fresh order on the merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case for AY 2020-21 was referred by DVU due to high liabilities and a significant discrepancy in property valuation, where the purchase price was Rs. 34 lakhs against a government valuation of Rs. 77 lakhs. The AO passed an ex-parte assessment order, making additions of Rs. 43 lakhs for the property difference and a total of Rs. 12,96,05,940/- including unsecured loans, due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The Ld. CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for the same reason.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were valid given the assessee's lack of opportunity to be heard, and if the additions related to property valuation and unsecured loans require re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), -NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 29.01.2025 for AY 2020-21.

Assessment Year: 2020-21 Krishna pada Das 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2020-21. The case of the assessee was referred by Designated Verification Unit (DVU). The reason for Section the case is High Liabilities as compared to low income / receipts and purchase Value of property less than the value as per Stamp authority u/s 56(2) or any other relevant section) (Business ITR). As per the return of income, the appellant had received unsecured loan of Rs. 1,60,43,543/- and as per the insight portal the assessee had purchased the immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 34,00,000/- whereas the Govt. value of said property for registration purpose was fixed at Rs. 77,00,000/-. The AO had made the addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- (Rs. 77,00,000/- - 34,00,000/-) and accordingly, ex-parte assessment order was passed with the addition of Rs. 12,96,05,940/- in the absence of reply from the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no response filed by the assessee in support of grounds of appeal.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee has to be remitted back to the file of AO as assessment order has been passed ex-parte. The Ld. A.R further submits that there was also no response from the side of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

5.

The Ld. D.R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee back to the file of AO.

6.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of AO and find that the assessment order was passed when the assessee did not respond to the notices. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the order of AO when there was no proper response on behalf of the assessee. Before us, the ld. AR has filed following documents which according to him are the essential piece of evidence: ii) Copies of Acknowledgments of Responses to NFAC dated 14.08.2024 and 05.11.2024 iii) Details of advances received from Customers for construction of Residential Flats and details of unsecured loans iv) Copies of Tax audit Report along with Audited Statements of Accounts for the year ended on 31.03.20220. v) Copies of Acknowledgment of Return of income and Computation for the AY 2020- 21. vi) Copies of Sale Deed in Bengali (Purchase of shop) along with English Translation thereof.

7.

Keeping in view the order passed by the lower authorities and considering the submission made by the Ld. A.R, for the interest of justice, we are remitting the appeal back to the file of AO for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the assessee to hear and the AO is directed to consider the documents if filed by the assessee and passed afresh order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025

More judgments on Section 56(2)

All 166 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →