DINESH KUMAR,GODDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-III, DEOGHAR

order : April 30, 2021 ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.10.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’]. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:

2. For that Interest charged u/s 234B may be directed to be charged on tax payable on returned income, as per decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Dtd. 25th July, 2012, in Tax Appeal No.38 of 2010, in the case of Sri Ajay Prakash Vema vs. Income Tax officer, Range-1, Ward-1, Dhanbad reported in MANU/JH/2120/2012 and in 2013 (4) J.LJ.R. 389 (Jharkhand) and also the decisions of jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT. 3. For that other grounds, if any, will be taken up, argued at the time of hearing.” 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. An application for adjournment has been filed by one of the brothers of the assessee, Shri Mukesh Kumar, stating that the assessee was in imprisonment, therefore, he could not put appearance before this Tribunal.

Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dinesh Kumar 3. After considering the grounds of appeal and material on record and hearing the ld. DR, I find that since a simple issue is involved in this appeal and the assessee has a fair case, therefore, this appeal can be disposed off after hearing the ld. DR.

4. Vide Ground No.1 of the appeal, the assessee has agitated against the action of the CIT(A) in estimating net profits of the assessee @8% of the gross receipts as against 5.6% declared by the assessee from its business of civil construction.

6. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts of the assessee since the assessee failed to produce bills and vouchers before him. He, therefore, estimated the net profit of the assessee @10% of the gross receipts.

7. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that the books of accounts of the assessee were duly audited. The assessee produced the necessary details like books of accounts etc. before the ld. CIT(A) whereupon the remand report was called upon from the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary verifications from the respective parties regarding the bills, vouchers etc. The ld. CIT(A) requisitioned the case from the Assessing Officer vide its letter 09.05.2016. Thereafter, a fresh letter calling for the case records was issued to the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer even failed to send the records to the ld. CIT(A) stating that the same were not traceable. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, did not consider the plea of the assessee that the accounts of the assessee were duly audited and there was no discrepancy in the same. However, he, giving some relief to the assessee, estimated the net profits @8% as against 10% estimated by the Assessing Officer.

8. The assessee, therefore, has come in appeal before this Tribunal pleading that there was no justification on the part of the ld. CIT(A) in estimating the profits when the accounts were duly furnished by the assessee and remand report was called upon by the ld. CIT(A) from the Assessing Officer. I find merit in the above plea of the assessee. The assessee has duly furnished his accounts, bills and vouchers whereupon the ld. CIT(A) has called for remand report from the Assessing Officer,however, the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary verifications 2

Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dinesh Kumar etc. from the parties and did not send any remand report. Even the Assessing Officer did not send the case records stating that the same were not traceable. Because of the lack on the part of the officials of the Department, the assessee cannot be punished. In view of this, the additions made on estimation basis in the case of the assessee, in my view, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to assess the net profit as per the return of income furnished of the assessee.