SUDAM SAHOO,PURBA MEDINIPORE V. ITO, WARD 27(1), HALDIA

ITA 144/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sudam Sahoo, who appealed against the orders of the AO and CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2020-21. The primary issue was the addition of unexplained investments in immovable properties and other unexplained credits to the assessee's income. The AO had added substantial amounts to the assessee's income, citing unexplained investments and excess stamp duty, which were upheld by the CIT(A) due to the absence of any response from the assessee. The Tribunal, noting the lack of opportunity given to the assessee to present his case, decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298596 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” 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. 144/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sudam Sahoo (PAN: ATMPS 7797 K) Vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appellant / ) अपीलाथȸ ( Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ Date of Hearing / सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ 25.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ 16.04.2025 For the assessee / Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से Shri S. P. Datta, A.R For the revenue / राजèव कȧ ओर से Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. D.R ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 19.11.2024 for AY 2020-21. 2 I.T.A. No. 144/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sudam Sahoo 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 17,79,080/-. The case was selected for scrutiny as it has been depicted that the assessee has purchased the three immovable properties during the period under consideration. The assessee has been requested to show cause as to why the entire investment in immovable properties of Rs. 1,91,00,000/- should not be treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee has been noticed but there was no reply from the side of the assessee, as a result of which, the AO has added an amount of Rs. 19,10,00,000/- with regard to consideration amount of immovable properties, addition on account of excess stamp duty u/s 56(2)(x) an amount of Rs. 1,34,41,596/- and further added amount of Rs. 51,92,088/- on account of unexplained sundry creditor u/s 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no reply from the side of the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee on behalf of assessee instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place his case before the AO as the order passed by AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are an ex-parte order. 5. The Ld. D.R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in restoring the case to the file of AO. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the lower authorities and find that before the AO the order was passed when there was no reply on behalf of the assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The prayer of the assessee is that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place his case before the AO as the assessee possessed a law of documentary evidences to prove his case. On perusal of the 3 I.T.A. No. 144/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sudam Sahoo order of Ld. CIT(A) it appears to us that the same has been passed when there was no reply submitted by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO in view of the non-compliance from the side of the assessee. Since the order passed by the AO is also an ex-parte order, hence we are inclined to restore the case of the assessee to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside, the case of the assessee is remitted back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश क ुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय Dated: 16th April, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Sudam Sahoo, N2 Sector New Digha, New Digha, Purba Medinipur- 721463 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-27(1), Haldia 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 "