ANUP KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), PATNA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who along with other four brothers (who are co-owners independently) entered into a land development agreement with a builder namely M/s. Aastik Dream Valley Pvt. Limited for development of inherited piece of land on 01.03.2016 corresponding to A.Y. 2016-17. At the time of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act, which was not served upon the assessee. Notices under section 142(1) was issued but there was no evidence that the notices were served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer passed the order under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 28.11.2019 assessing the long-term capital gain at Rs.51,45,000/- and deducted the tax on LTCG @ 20%, i.e. Rs.10,29,000/-, Education Cess @ 3% on Rs.10,29,000/-, i.e. Rs.30,870/- , interest u/s 234A from Aug., 2016 to November 2019 on total long- term capital gain tax, i.e. Rs.10,59,870/- [Rs.10,20,000 plus Rs.30,870/-] @ 40% i.e. Rs.4,23,948/-, and interest under section 234B for the period from 01.04.2016 to November, 2019 on total long-term capital gain tax, i.e. Rs.10,59,870/- @ 44%, i.e. Rs.4,66,343/- , which aggregated to Rs.19,50,161/- as balance tax payable by the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the action of the

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to our notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the long-term capital gain for tax purpose at Rs.51,45,000/- and after adding tax on LTCG, Education Cess and deducting prepaid taxes, balance tax stood payable at Rs.19,50,161/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld.