ADNAN RAHMAT,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 674/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 January 2026AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that one of the grounds raised was whether the recorded reasons were provided to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order from the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-2014. The appellant argued that the AO's reasons for assessment were not linked to the actual issue of a joint development agreement, as no income could be assessed until project completion.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO's reasons for assessment were properly provided to the assessee and whether they were relevant to the actual issue of a joint development agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 13/01/2026Pronounced: 13/01/2026

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.03.2025, passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-2014.

2.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the reasons as mentioned by the AO in page 1 of the assessment order did not having live link to the actual issue, insofar as this was the case of joint development agreement and no income could be assessed in the hands of the assessee on the basis of such joint development agreement until the completion of the development of the project.

3.

At this point, it was requested to the ld. AR to provide the reasons recorded. It was submitted that the revenue has not provided the same.

4.

Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that he does not have immediately copy of the reasons recorded.

1. 2 5. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that one of the grounds raised

1.

1. before the ld. CIT(A) is as to whether reasons recorded has not been given to the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, this issues are restored to the file of ld.AO in the line with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gkn Drivesharts (India) Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR

19. (SC).

1.

6. At this point, when the order was being dictated the ld. AR submitted that his issues on merits is also to be considered. As the order has already been dictated, at this point, to say that his merits may be considered is nothing but trying to override the decision of the bench in regard to the issue of reopening. If the issue of reopening itself is strong, then I am sure the Assessing Officer would after considering the explanation of the assessee consider all the issues afresh. With these findings, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It is hereby clarified that the issues are left open including the legal issues.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2026. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 13/01/2026 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →