GOPAL PRADHAN,DARJILING vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4), KALIMPONG

Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member :

receipt u/s 10(37) read with 2(14)(iii) and not considering the same by CIT(A) NFAC is bad in law and facts to be quashed and/or set aside. 4) The order of CIT(A) was passed ex-parte so I could not claim the deduction u/s 54/54F also. 5) The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. 6) The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person. That the assessee’s land was acquired by the government under compulsory acquisition and that the consideration received therefrom was exempt from taxation. That there was an another addition of Rs. 16 lakh of cash deposit. That the aforesaid cash deposit was out of known source of income that the assessee, however, could not present his case before the AO as the assessee was not conversant with the nitty gritty of the income tax assessment procedure. That during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee not keeping good health as the kidney of the assessee was transplanted. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same.

4. Considering the above submissions and impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention here that the assessee may file required details before the AO as and when called for by the AO in the assessment proceedings. With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Gopal Pradhan, AY. 2021-22

Order is pronounced in the open court.