SANKAR CHARAN MARNDI,MAYURBHANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ACIT, CIRCLE BALASORE, BALASORE

Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sankar Charan Marndi Sankar Charan Marndi Vs. Assistant Commisssioner Of Assistant Commisssioner Of Sukhupada, Kuliana Sukhupada, Kuliana Income Tax, ACIT, Circle Income Tax, ACIT, Circle Mayurbhanj, 757030 Mayurbhanj, 757030 Balasore PAN/GIR No. No.AHXPM 6042 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 30/12/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated dated 27/11/2024 in in Appeal Appeal No. No. CIT(A), Cuttack/10628/2019 Cuttack/10628/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-18

The assessee ha The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that, the learned CIT( 1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and in well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and in well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and in P a g e 1 | 5 confirming the addition made by the learned A.O., without providing sufficient effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, as such, the appeal order, being passed on gross violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be quashed in the interest of justice.

2. For that, the addition made by the learned A.O. in the order of assessment, ignoring the explanation offered and evidences adduced by the Appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A), confirming the assessment order passed by the learned A.O., without examining the assessment record and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant is also not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be quashed in the interest of justice.

P a g e 2 | 5

6. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in confirming the addition of bank deposits of SBNs to the tune of Rs. 23,50,000.00 made by the learned A.O., treating part of sales turnover as unexplained money being completely illegal and contrary to the facts on record is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence the same needs to be deleted in the interest of justice 7. For that, when the learned A.D has accepted the business turnover and amount so deposited in the bank account of the Appellant were out of sales proceeds and formed part of sales turnover, part of the same le. Rs.23,50,000.00 cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. particularly when, the books of account was rejected, as such the impugned addition of Rs.23,50,000.00 made by the learned A.Q. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 8. For that, section 69A of the Act has no application under the facts and in the circumstance of the present case, as such, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. of Rs. 23,50,000.00 and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), by applying provisions of section 69A of the Act being completely wrong, illegal, contrary to the facts on record is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 9. For that, the addition of income from other sources of Rs. 1,14,997.00 by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is wrong, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of Justice 10. For that, the Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to urge other grounds of appeal

, if any, at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.”

4. It was submitted by the ld AR passed the order exparte without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was also the submission that the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 of the Act by rejecting the books of account of the assessee recomputing the net profit of the assessee @ 2.28% of the gross turnover of Rs.20,48,5,479/-. It was h is submission that without discussing the merits of the case the ld

P a g e 3 | 5 CIT(A) has dealt the grounds in one or two sentences in his order. It was further submission that the adhoc estimation of net profit @ 2.28% is highly excessive and is not sustainable. Further he submitted that when the AO has accepted the business turnover and amount so deposited in the vbank account of the assessee were out of the self proceeds from part of the sales turnover, part of the same cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. Lastly submitted that as the assessment order passed by the AO is u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order of the CIT(A) is also exparte the matter may be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. He undertakes that the assessee will co-operate in the set aside proceeding with documentary evidences to substantiate his claim.

5. In reply, the ld Sr. DR supported the orders of the authority below.

P a g e 4 | 5

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/12/2024.