SHRI RAM PRAVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 53(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

When the Stay Application came up for hearing it was agreed by the parties that the stay application as well as the appeal can be decided together as the issue involved in the appeal lies a very narrow compass.

2 S.A.No.01/Kol/2 Shri Ram Pravesh Sharma A.Yr.2014-15 3. he Assessee is an individual. For A.Y.2014-15 he filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.58,43,530/-. The assessment was completed by the AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act)viz. Best Judgment Assessment. The assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the AO. The AO noticed that the assessee had purchased jointly in his name and his wife Mrs. Lal Kumari Devi an apartment at 1004, 10th Floor, Tower No.E6, Eden City Maheshtala measuring 1524 sq.ft with a covered parking from Eden Real Estates Private Limited for a consideration of Rs.28,94,140/-. The sale deed was registered in the office of the sub-registrar on 14.02.2014. For the purpose of stamp duty the valuation of the property was valued at Rs.45,58,800/-. The AO added the difference between Rs.48,58,800/- and Rs.Rs.28,94,140/- viz a sum of Rs.16,64,660/- under the head income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Even before CIT(A) the assessee had not appeared and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte for non prosecution.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The assessee has filed an affidavit before the tribunal pointing out that he has a handicapped son by name Prem Ranjan Sharma, who was employed at Nalanda in Bihar. It has been pointed out that in the month of October & November, 2016 and again in the month of March and April, 2017 the assessee’s son was not well and therefore he had to proceed to Nalanda to attend him. Since the assessee was not present in his residence the notices of hearing of appeal were not within the knowledge of the assessee. It is due to this reason that there was non appearance of the assessee before CIT(A). The ld. Counsel prayed that the order of CIT(A) may be set aside and the issue raised by the assessee on the impugned addition of Rs.16,64,660/- be set aside to the AO for fresh consideration so that the AO shall examine the matter in depth after 2

We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions and are of the view that the assessee’s non appearance before CIT(A) was not willful and there was sufficient cause for his non appearance. We also find that the AO has framed the assessment exparte. In these circumstances we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand to the AO for fresh consideration the issue with regard to the addition of a sum of Rs.16,64,660/-. The AO shall afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law. For statistical purposes the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. In view of the decision in the appeal the Stay Application does not require any consideration and the same is dismissed as infructuous.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed while the stay application for grant of stay is dismissed as infructuous.