M/S S. KUMAR CONTRACTORS & SUPPLIERS,SONEBHADRA vs. IT OFFICER RANGE-3, MIRZAPUR

O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. That in any view of the matter assessment made on income of Rs. 22,69,600.00 vide order dated 18.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act is bad.both on the facts and in law.

2. That in any view of the matter the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the appeal exparte without providing reasonable opportunity

M/s S. Kumar Contractors & Suppliers to the assessee and the order is not speaking order and thus there is a violation of principals of natural justice.

5. That in any view of the matter the assessee is maintain books of accounts which are audited and past records of the assessee is neat and clean, no comparable case was cited for application of net profit rate of 8% hence the action of both the two lower authorities is highly unjustified.

M/s S. Kumar Contractors & Suppliers

Officer rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and applied net profit rate 8% then it is incorrect to add the separate items of balance sheet and profit and loss account and thus entire action is bad in law. 11. That in any view of the matter interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the income tax act is highly unjustified. 12. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh grounds of appeal before hearing of the appeal.”

2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that in the Ground No.2, the assessee has challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) though the presence of the counsel is marked in the captions of the impugned order. The ld. AR has pointed out that the Assessing Officer made trading addition by adopting N.P. at 8% as well as the addition on account of loan and advances shown in the balance sheet. Further, the Assessing Officer has also made an addition on account of cash in hand, which is also balance sheet item. He has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily without even considering the arguments of the assessee as reproduced in the impugned order. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to produce the relevant record, books of account as well as to present his case before the ld. CIT(A).

3. On the other hand, ld. DR has opposed to the grant of more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that despite sufficient opportunities given by the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to produce the books of account as well as the other supporting evidence.

4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as careful perusal of the impugned order it is noted that though the ld. CIT(A) has marked the presence of the M/s S. Kumar Contractors & Suppliers AR of the assessee however, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) are non speaking and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that not a single document was produced to show that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are not justified. It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions of the assessee in Para 3 of the impugned however, the contentions as raised by the assessee in the written submission regarding the rejection of books of account, adoption of N.P. at 8% by the Assessing Officer, without considering the past history of the assessee own case as well as comparable cases and the additions made on account of loan and advances and cash in hand have not been properly analyzed and discussed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well as to produce the books of account and other supporting evidence.

(Order pronounced on 14/01/2021 at Allahabad in the open Court through Video Conferencing)