AJAY KUMAR MOHAPATRA,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

As per the office note, there is a delay of 501 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which ld. Sr. DR did not object to it. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated by the assessee in the affidavit for delay, we condone the delay of 501 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal of the assessee finally.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual deriving income from sale of Auto Spare Parts & House Property and he filed return of income on 29.03.2012 showing income of Rs.2,52,882/- in the status of individual for the assessment year 2011-2012. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing that the actual turnover of the business is much more than that of disclosed by the assessee in the return filed for the year under consideration. Subsequently, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144/147 of the Act ascertaining the income of the assessee at Rs.9,38,030/- making additions/disallowance on account of low turnover. It was the submission that in appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the findings recorded by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee has produced the documentary evidence as were sought for by the AO, however, those documents have not been considered. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed all the required details but the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case and substantiate its claim before the AO.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, however, there was no compliance made by the assessee. Though subsequently the AR of the assessee appeared and filed his written submissions, but no corroborative evidence was filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim during the course of assessment. Further on perusal of para 6.2 of page 4 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), clearly shows that notices were issued to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) on the different dates, however, no compliance has been made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. On being asked, the ld. AR submitted that he would be able to prove before the AO, if the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to produce the details. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate its claim.