Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal
order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.10.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1 For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the order ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.
2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 4,38,673/- on account of interest of housing loan u/s 24(b) of the Act.
Assessment Year : 2018-19 Punit Popat 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the business loss to the tune of Rs. 17,26,428/- on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in any business activity during the year.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs.97,53,262/- under the head Long Term Capital Gain.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs.1,35,32,070/- under the head Income from other sources u/s 57 of the Act.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in denying deduction claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,70,539/- u/s 80C, 80TTA and 80D made by the AO, CPC while processing the return.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 2,430/- on account exempt income claimed by the assessee u/s 10(32) of the Act.
The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal
or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”
3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that in this case both the orders of the lower authorities i.e. assessment order as well as order of the CIT(A) are ex parte orders. An affidavit has been placed on file by the assessee, Shri Punit Popat, wherein, it has been deposed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the compliance of initial notice issued by the Assessing Officer was made by the assessee but later on compliance could not be made due to covid pandemic. It has been further explained that even the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte of the assessee for want of prosecution. It has been deposed in the affidavit that no physical notice was received by the assessee from the CIT(A). That the notice might have been issued on email which was not accessed to by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not in the knowledge of