MANMATH KUMAR SAHOO,ROURKELA,ODISHA vs. ITO WARD-1-ROURKELA, SUNDARGARH

Shri Natabar Natabar Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by It was submitted by Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer has passed g Officer has passed the Assessment Order under Order under Section 144 read with Section 147 Section 147 of the Act 26.5.2023. The Assessing Officer has filed the return of income in response The Assessing Officer has filed the return of income in response The Assessing Officer has filed the return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Subsequently, t to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer he Assessing Officer initiated assessment assessment by issuing notice under Section 142(1) Section 142(1) of the Act P a g e 1 | 3 calling for explanation alongwith supporting documentary evidence with respect to the nature and source of cash deposit of Rs.5,02,000/-,interest of Rs.37,209/- and suppressed turnover amounting to Rs.8,18,458/-. In response to notice, the assessee had filed reply and submitted copy of computation of income, a copy of handwritten application addressed to Deputy Director of Investigation, Rourkela. It was the submission that a show cause notice as alleged by the Assessing Officer was sent to the assessee on 30.5.2022 but that notice has not been received by the assessee. It was the submission that the notice sent by mail or uploaded in the portal was not in the knowledge of the assessee and therefore, same was not responded to. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has passed order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by making various additions. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) also confirmed the addition without the compliance by the assessee. It was his prayer in the Bar that the issues be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication and the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings. To this request, ld Sr DR did not have any objection.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that although in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income and produced some documentary evidence but later on in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, the assessee did not comply. It was the submission that no notice was served

In the result, appeal of assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.