RAJ KUMAR SINGH ,PATNA vs. ITO,WARD-6(4),PATNA , PATNA
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the assessment order, which was made ex-parte due to non-prosecution. The assessee had entered into a land development agreement, and the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 after the assessee failed to file a return. The AO assessed the total income at ₹77,72,460/-, including capital gains, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is not empowered by law according to case precedents. The Tribunal also observed that proper representation was not made by the assessee at both the AO and CIT(A) stages. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147, 148, 53A, 2(47)(v), 45, 48, 250(6), 250(1), 251(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 341/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Raj Kumar Singh ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: CQAPS5076G Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 15-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 30- December-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 07.10.2024.
1.1 The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 224 days in filing of this appeal, which has been requested to be condoned by the assessee by an application for condonation of delay as under:
“Most respectfully the petitioner be get to stay as under; The impugned assessment order was served on the appeal by 07-10-2024, limitation for filing the appeal was upto 06-12-2024. The appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period due to family issues with the appellant, he was disturbed and consequently he lost the contact with the person who had filed the first appeal so he could not received any update about the order of the appellate authority.
It is the therefore humbly prayed that the delay in filing the appeal by 224 days may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be allowed to be proceeded with. And for this the appeal shall ever pray.” 1.2 On going through the petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay; therefore, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, [the CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the assessment order passed by the Commissioner of income tax ITO WARD 5(1), PATNA (the A.O), assessing the appellant under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961, ('the Act') at an income of Rs 2,48,24,480/-against returned income of Rs 3,24,230/- 2. For that the learned has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in arbitrarily confirming addition of Rs 2,45,00,250/- under the heads as detailed under, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified;. Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Amount(Rs.) A Returned Income 3,24,230/- Addition on presumption 2,45,00,250/- basis treated as non agriculture Income during the year. B Assessed Income R/o 2,48,24,480/-
For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in treating the amount of Rs 2,45,00,250/- as suspiciously making addition on the basis of Joint Development Agreement. The assessment is erroneous, illegal, and unsupported by evidence. 4. For that the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not allowing proper opportunity of being heard which is arbitrary, wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not taking cognition of the submissions filed by the appellant before him. 6. That the whole order passed by the CIT (A) is bad in facts and law. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or vary the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of information under section 133(6) in terms of copies of land development agreement, it was found by the Assessing Officer (“the Ld. AO”) that the assessee Shri Raj Kumar Singh had entered into and registered a Land development agreement (“JDA”) with M/s Singh Engicon (India Pvt. Ltd.) in the financial year 2015-16 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. On perusal of the land development agreement entered into by the assessee on 22/08/2015, it was noted by the Ld. AO that the assessee and the developer had agreed to the development arrangement where the total land area of 13,066.8 sq.ft. owned by the assessee would be constructed upon by the land developer. In terms of the land development agreement, the share of constructed building to be owned by the assessee was 16,333.5 sq.ft. encompassing total floor area of 32,667 square feet. As per the land development agreement registered, the total value of Land was ₹ 2,97,00,000/-. As a bundle of ownership rights over his share of land was relinquished by the assessee in terms of the land
