SANDEEP ROUT,BALASORE vs. ITO,WARD-1,BALASORE, BALASORE
Facts
The assessee purchased an immovable property, and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV) was higher than the sale consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the differential amount to the assessee's income. The assessee's first appeal was dismissed due to non-representation.
Held
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to explain the difference between the purchase value and SDV, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of the first appeal due to non-representation was justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to explain the property valuation.
Sections Cited
143(1), 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) RL REDDY(KZ)
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld Addl/JCIT ld Addl/JCIT(Appeal-1, Bengaluru dated 24/02/2025 24/02/2025 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10351/2019 No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10351/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year passed for Assessment Year 2014-15.
Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual derives Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual income from business. The return of income is filed for the assessment income from business. The return of income is filed for the assessment income from business. The return of income is filed for the assessment year 2014-15 on 31.3.2014 disclosing total income at Rs.2,27,040/ 15 on 31.3.2014 disclosing total income at Rs.2,27,040/-. The 15 on 31.3.2014 disclosing total income at Rs.2,27,040/ return was processed u/s.143(1) of the act and subse was processed u/s.143(1) of the act and subsequently, the return quently, the return
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No.222/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15
was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 29.3.2019 and served on the assessee. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 11.5.2019 showing income of Rs.2,27,040/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the AO that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at Sahadevkhunta whose SDV was Rs.21,33,000/- and the actual sale consideration as per sale deed was Rs.12,00,000/-. The AO required the assessee to explain the source of investment and also the differential amount of Rs.9,33,000/- between the SDV amount and sale consideration. In reply, the assessee stated that the difference of purchase and the fair market value depends on a lot of facts considering the location and nature of land. The above explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the AO and, accordingly, the differential value of Rs.9,33,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee.
In the first appeal, the ld Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-representation by the assessee.
At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee stated that the assessee had no knowledge to operate the email id or visit the portal of the department. Ld Addl/JCIT(A) sent all the notices through email id and for this reason, the assessee did not have any knowledge about the notices issued by the ld Addl/JCIT(A). He prayed that one more opportunity be
P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No.222/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15
granted to the assessee to explain the differential amount regarding purchase value and SDV value of the property.
In reply, ld Sr DR did not have any objection to restoring the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. The reasons as stated by the ld AR of the assessee for not complying with the notices issued by the ld Addl/JCIT(A) is that the assessee did not have any knowledge about operating the email.id given in the departmental portal, for which, he could not know the notices being issued for appellate proceedings. Before me, ld AR undertakes to cooperate if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication. In view of above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the ld CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No.222/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2025.
Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack: Dated 30/06/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sandeep Rout S/O – Late Madhusudan Rout Bhimpur, Haripur, Balasore, 756019 2. The Respondent : ITO, Ward-1, Balasore 3. The Addl/JCIT(A)-Bengaluru 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Asst.Registrar, Itat, cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4
