SUBROTO SAHA, INDIDUAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), KOLKATA

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 20.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and did not file his return of income for the year under consideration. The ld. Assessing Officer was received information through JCIT (OSD), I & CI, Kolkata that the assessee along with other 10 parties had made a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. K.K. Realstates for development of premises for consideration of Rs. 4,70,00,000/-. The total stamp duty value was determined by the relevant authority was Rs. 22,02,77,355/-. Therefore, the ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee on different dates. However, assessee was non responsive to the notices issued by the AO. The assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 by assessing the total income of Subroto Saha assessee at Rs. 2,44,75,261/- thereby raising the tax demand of Rs. 1,50,02,104/- in the case of assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of assessing officer, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising multiple grounds. The first ground relating to challenging the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act stating that the alleged notices was bad in law as well as on facts. Therefore, the order passed by authorities below needs to be set aside.

On the other hand, ld. DR stated that assessee has never appeared before the AO and no return for the assessment year was filed. Therefore, the contention made by the assessee is not sustainable.

We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record find that assessee never appeared before the AO in terms of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, such plea taken by the assessee cannot be entertained and the grounds taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed.

Further, the contention of ld. AR is that the assessee did not get any opportunity to file supported documents in order to Subroto Saha substantiate its claim before the authority below. Since no effective notice was served upon the assessee and assessee could not file its proper reply in support of its claim. Therefore, interest of justice and fair play the matter may be set aside to the authority below with the direction to re-examine the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

On the other hand, ld. DR has not raised any objection of prayer made by AR of the assessee.

We after hearing the submission of both the parties and after perusing the material available on record find that interest of justice and fair play to the parties instant issues involved in the appeal is hereby set aside to the file to ld. CIT(A) with the direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case the assessee has failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) after issuance of notice in such situation the ld. CIT(A) may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.