SANDEEP ROUT,BALASORE V. ITO,WARD-1,BALASORE, BALASORE

ITA 222/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Sandeep Rout, against the order of the ld Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru, which dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-representation. The primary issue arose from the reassessment of the assessee's income for the assessment year 2014-15, where a differential amount between the stamp duty value (SDV) and the actual sale consideration of a property purchase was added to the assessee's income. The tribunal noted that the assessee was unaware of the notices issued by the ld Addl/JCIT(A) due to his lack of knowledge in operating the email system, which was the medium used for communication by the department. Consequently, the tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the ld CIT(A) for a fresh examination, providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the differential amount concerning the property purchase.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705436 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: NATABAR PANDA
• Keywords: Fair market value

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE SHRI Sandeep Rout S/O – Late Madhusudan Rout Bhimpur, Haripur, Balasore, 756019 PAN/GIR No.AXFPP R2321 F (Appellant The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld Addl/JCIT No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10351/2019 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual income from business. The return of income is filed for the assessment year 2014-15 on 31.3.2014 disclosing total income at Rs.2,27,040/ return was processed u/s.143(1) of the act and subse IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) ITA No.222/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Late Madhusudan Rout Bhimpur, Haripur, Balasore, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore AXFPP R2321 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Date of Hearing : 30/06/202 Date of Pronouncement : 30/06/202 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against ld Addl/JCIT(Appeal-1, Bengaluru dated 24/02/2025 No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10351/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual income from business. The return of income is filed for the assessment 15 on 31.3.2014 disclosing total income at Rs.2,27,040/ was processed u/s.143(1) of the act and subsequently, the return P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) Respondent) Natabar Panda, Adv DR /2025 /2025 The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against 24/02/2025 in Appeal passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual derives income from business. The return of income is filed for the assessment 15 on 31.3.2014 disclosing total income at Rs.2,27,040/-. The quently, the return ITA No.222/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 P a g e 2 | 4 was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 29.3.2019 and served on the assessee. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 11.5.2019 showing income of Rs.2,27,040/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the AO that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at Sahadevkhunta whose SDV was Rs.21,33,000/- and the actual sale consideration as per sale deed was Rs.12,00,000/-. The AO required the assessee to explain the source of investment and also the differential amount of Rs.9,33,000/- between the SDV amount and sale consideration. In reply, the assessee stated that the difference of purchase and the fair market value depends on a lot of facts considering the location and nature of land. The above explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the AO and, accordingly, the differential value of Rs.9,33,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 3. In the first appeal, the ld Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-representation by the assessee. 4. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee stated that the assessee had no knowledge to operate the email id or visit the portal of the department. Ld Addl/JCIT(A) sent all the notices through email id and for this reason, the assessee did not have any knowledge about the notices issued by the ld Addl/JCIT(A). He prayed that one more opportunity be ITA No.222/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 P a g e 3 | 4 granted to the assessee to explain the differential amount regarding purchase value and SDV value of the property. 5. In reply, ld Sr DR did not have any objection to restoring the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A). 6. I have considered the rival submissions. The reasons as stated by the ld AR of the assessee for not complying with the notices issued by the ld Addl/JCIT(A) is that the assessee did not have any knowledge about operating the email.id given in the departmental portal, for which, he could not know the notices being issued for appellate proceedings. Before me, ld AR undertakes to cooperate if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication. In view of above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the ld CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.222/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 P a g e 4 | 4 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2025. Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack: Dated 30/06/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Asst.Registrar, Itat, cuttack 1. The Appellant : Sandeep Rout S/O – Late Madhusudan Rout Bhimpur, Haripur, Balasore, 756019 2. The Respondent : ITO, Ward-1, Balasore 3. The Addl/JCIT(A)-Bengaluru 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "