RAJ KUMAR JAIN,BENGALURU V. OFFICE OF AO OF IT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 162/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Raj Kumar Jain, a non-resident Indian, who filed a revised return for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring an income of Rs. 2,81,69,650. The AO, due to non-compliance in providing details as requested, assessed his income at Rs. 14,15,69,650, adding Rs. 11,34,00,000 as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) upheld this assessment, noting the assessee's failure to provide readable documents or comply with multiple opportunities given. Dissatisfied, Jain appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided to remit the case back to the AO to consider the new evidence presented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36010 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Revised return; Unexplained investment
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA Įी राजेश क ुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं Įी Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 162/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar Jain (PAN: ADBPJ 9987 D) Vs. AO, IT, Circle-2(1),IT, Kolkata Appellant / ) अपीलाथȸ ( Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ Date of Hearing / सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ 13.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ 26.03.2025 For the assessee /Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से Shri Raj Kumar Jain, (Self) For the revenue / राजèव कȧ ओर से Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.11.2023 for AY 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee was a non-resident Indian, filed revised return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 2,81,69,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, notices and questionnaire were issued 2 I.T.A. No. 162/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar Jain and duly served but the assessee did not furnish any details with the aforesaid notices, as a result of which, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 14,15,69,650/- by adding Rs. 11,34,00,000/- as unexplained investment. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by observing that the assessee furnished written submission with some documents which are not at all readable and do not prove anything whatsoever. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel instead of arguing into the merit of the case has submitted that the assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case before the AO as the AO has assessed the income when the assessee failed to comply the statutory compliance and further the Ld. CIT(A) has also held that in spite of giving multiple date the assessee did not furnish any supporting documents and documents which have been furnished are not at all readable. The Ld. Counsel filed before us some papers which according to him are essential piece of evidence to come out just conclusion of the case. His prayer is that he has been given an opportunity to place the additional evidence before the AO. 5. The ld. D.R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting back the appeal of the assessee to the file of AO. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of AO and find that the AO has assessed the income when the assessee failed to comply with the notice and also show cause notices. The Ld. CIT(A) in its order has also dismissed grounds of appeal of the assessee by observing that the records make it clear that the assessee has given many of chances to set his case but he disregarded them and did not comply. The Ld. CIT(A) has further observed that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished a written submission with some documents which are not at all readable. The submission of Ld. A.R is that the assessee possessed some essential documents which are as follows: 3 I.T.A. No. 162/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar Jain i) Employment Letter: Page 13,14,21 ii) Income Tax Statement (Singapore and Germany): Pages 22 to 31, Page 35 to 42. iii) Infineon Stock Awards : Pages 45 to 54 iv) Passport and Foreign Residency : Page 20,32,33,34,43,44. v) Additional Bank statement from 1995 : Page 65. 7. Going over the facts of the case, the order passed by both the authorities below and considering the submission of the assessee for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the AO to consider the additional evidence field by the assessee before us and then pass an afresh order after hearing the assessee. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside and the case is restored back to the file of AO. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश क ुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय Dated: 26th March, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Raj Kumar Jain, Nusa Dua, Villa D16, R. Narayanapura Road, Whitefield, Karnataka-560066 2. Respondent – Office of AO of IT, Circle-2(1), IT, Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "