B.R. CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to communication issues. It set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO, remitting the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment (de novo). The ITAT directed the AO to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee, B.R. Construction, appealed against an assessment order for AY 2020-21 which was upheld by the CIT(A). The appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 165 days, citing miscommunication and technological challenges. The substantive issue involved an addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), as the AO treated a development agreement with Thika Tenants/Principals as an 'Investment in Immovable Property' instead of a contractual arrangement for development rights.
What were the issues?
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. 2. Whether a development agreement constitutes an 'Investment in Immovable Property' under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B). 3. Alleged violation of natural justice by CIT(A) in passing an ex-parte order without considering substantive legal issues.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others20 citing268 ITR 436 · 2004 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: April 24th, 2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 15.04.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.09.2022.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)
- Neelam Singh, Mathura vs ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), MathuraITA 390/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Santosh Malik, Mathura vs ITO Ward 1(3)(1), MathuraITA 408/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitin Santosh Singh, Mumbai vs Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal ChamberITA 5261/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Biswajit Das, Coochbehar vs DCIT, Circle 2(1), JalpaiguriITA 3225/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021
- Adarsh, Brahmnagar Auraiya vs Registrar, Sanjay Place AgraITA 344/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026