Loading judgment…

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR | BharatTax

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 175/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed as withdrawn

Facts

The assessee, a non-resident Indian, sold an immovable property for ₹2,40,00,000/- in FY 2016-17 (AY 2017-18). The assessment determined total income at ₹2,61,11,609/-, disallowed a deduction u/s 54, and added ₹21,10,000/- u/s 69A. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against a rectification order correcting a section number related to penalty initiation.

Held

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal because the grounds of appeal were based on the original assessment order and not the rectification order, which was the subject of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal based on this technicality.

Key Issues

The assessee appealed against a rectification order, but the grounds of appeal pertained to the original assessment order. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee requested to withdraw it to pursue an appeal against the assessment order.

Sections Cited

250, 154, 143(3), 69A, 54, 271(1)(b), 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [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 2017-18 dated 08.01.2025, I.T.A. No.: 175/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prafulla Kumar Routray. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.05.2020. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that order dated 08.01.2025 as passed under Section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata-22 hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(Appeals)’ dismissing the appeal is not just and legal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

2.

For that the learned CIT(Appeals) without properly appreciating the facts and submissions of the appellant from its proper perspective and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard should not have dismissed the appeal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

3.

For that addition of Rs.21,10,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A as made by the learned Assessing Officer is not correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

4.

For that disallowance of cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 1,57,53,865/-and claim of deduction of Rs.82,46,135/- u/s.54 totalling to Rs.2,40,00,000/-and addition of the same to the returned income of the appellant is not factually correct and legally tenable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

3.

Brief facts of the case as culled out from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted by the assessee in the statement of facts are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian and during the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 had sold an immovable property for a consideration of ₹2,40,00,000/- and in such transaction TDS of ₹18,88,509/- was made by the buyer of the immovable property. The assessee had also purchased another immovable property during the year under appeal. The assessment was made determining the total income at ₹2,61,11,609/- and the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act was disallowed. A sum of ₹21,10,000/- was also added u/s 69A of the Act which related to the total credits in the SBI account. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') also disallowed the cost of I.T.A. No.: 175/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prafulla Kumar Routray. acquisition of the property at ₹1,57,53,865/- and claim of deduction of ₹82,46,135/- u/s 54 of the Act totalling to ₹2,40,00,000/- and added the same to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessment order was passed on 19.12.2019 assessing the total income of ₹2,61,11,609/- against the returned income of ₹1,609/- in which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was initiated. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 of the Act dated 29.05.2020 was passed which stated that a mistake had crept in the assessment order wherein inadvertently section 271(1)(b) of the Act was mentioned in place of correct section 272A(1)(d). It was stated that the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act were not applicable from AY 2017-18 onwards. In the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted the details of the order appealed against being the rectification order dated 29.05.2020 in which the only error of mentioning of incorrect section relating to penalty for non-compliance to the notices issued was corrected and therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by giving the following finding vide order dated 08.01.2025: “5.1 I have carefully examined the material at hand including the impugned orders and the submissions of the appellant.