BADSHA KHAN,KACHIRI BAZAR vs. ITO, BHADRAK, BHADRAK

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

It was submitted by ld AR that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, wherein, he has computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,99,96,790/- and determined the net profit at 8% of the turnover, as the assessee could not comply with the notices issued to the assessee. Ld AR has also filed before us the fresh evidence in the form of Trade License.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the first appellate authority, it is noticed that the assessee has filed fresh evidences in the form of trade license and further claims that his turnover is much lower than what has been calculated by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. It is noticed that the assessee has not represented before the Assessing Officer and also not produced any books of account to justify the source of deposit in his bank accounts. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has furnished the trade license and bank account statement, for which, the assessee has not filed necessary application under Rule 46A. Consequently, the ld CIT(A) has also not considered such evidences. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee may file the trade license and bank account statement in support of his case.

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