Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 56(2)(x)(b)(B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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.