Karan Singh Rathore Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 08.08.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged, among other matters, the validity of the assessment on the ground that he was a non-resident and that the Assessing Officer had failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144C. The assessee had also challenged additions of ₹13,17,000 under Section 69A relating to cash deposits and ₹15,00,000 under Section 69 relating to investment in immovable property, along with the initiation of proceedings under Section 148.
The assessee submitted that he was a non-resident for AY 2016-17 and had furnished a letter dated 12.01.2024 to the AO, along with his passport for the relevant year and the preceding four years, showing his dates of stay in India. According to the submission, his stay did not satisfy the conditions under Section 6(1)(a) and (c) for being treated as resident. The assessee therefore contended that he was an “eligible assessee” under Section 144C(15)(b)(ii), which includes a non-resident other than a company or foreign company.
Section 144C(1) requires the AO, where a prejudicial variation is proposed in the case of an eligible assessee, to first forward a draft assessment order and provide the assessee an opportunity to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel. The assessee argued that this mandatory procedure was not followed.
