KHURSHID ASHRAF,PATNA vs. ITO WARD-4 (5), PATNA

The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 32 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It has been pleaded in the application that he has handed over the papers to his counsel Shri Jagadish Kumar, who lost his vision and gone under treatment at Shankar Nethralay, Chennai. Due to such reason, he could not prepare the appeal and filed it within the time. On due consideration of the explanation of assessee, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.

The assessee has taken eleven grounds of appeal, which are descriptive in nature. Before adverting to the specific grounds of appeal, we deem it appropriate to take note of facts and circumstances of the case.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.2,34,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is a retail trader. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, he has opened a Savings Bank Account with ‘The Bihar Awami Cooperative Bank Limited’, Waqf Market, Muradabad,

The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal ex- parte.

We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We find that on the one hand, the assessee has estimated the income at 8% of the gross receipt. Simultaneously he has made different independent additions. Section 44AD provides that if a small retailer unable to achieve the gross turnover beyond Rs.50 lakhs, then he need not to maintain books of account and can offer income at 8% of the gross turnover of the business during the year. Once this methodology is being adopted for determining the taxable income of the

Adverting to the grounds of appeal, it reveals that in these grounds, the assessee has taken different arguments instead of specific pleading on any aspect. For example- Grounds No. 1, 9, 10 & 11 are general grounds only, which do not call for recording of any finding.

In Ground No. 2, the assessee has pleaded that ld. Assessing Officer has erred in determining the total income of Rs.6,75,510/- as against returned income of Rs.2,34,960/-. In the same manner, he has repeatedly mentioned one or other figures in other grounds. Without specifically dealing with these grounds of appeal, we are of the view that ends of justice would meet if a direction is being given to the ld. Assessing Officer to re-work out the income of the assessee under section 44AD at 8% of the gross receipt/turnover achieved by the assessee, which is reflected in the shape of cash deposits in the Bank. 9. With the above direction, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.08.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President Kolkata, the 27th day of August, 2024