PAWAN KUMAR AGARWALLA,KARANJIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BARIPADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 317/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 January 2024AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the substantial documents filed before the Tribunal that were not presented to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in agro-based industries and wholesale, declared an income of Rs. 7,20,590/-. During demonetization, Rs. 27,78,000/- was deposited in specified bank notes. The assessee failed to respond to the AO's notice, leading to the rejection of books and estimation of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's failure to produce books of account before the AO warrants a complete rejection of books and estimation of income, or if a further opportunity should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv, Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Hearing: 03/0

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi A), NFAC, Delhi dated 16.08.2023 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10572/2019 Cuttack/10572/2019-2020 for the assessment year 2017 2017-2018.

2.

Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld AR 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.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is in the business of agro is in the business of agro based industries and wholesale. It was the submission that the assessee based industries and wholesale. It was the submission that the assessee based industries and wholesale. It was the submission that the assessee

P a g e 1 | 4 had filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs.7,20,590/- and the accounts of the assessee are also audited. It was the submission that as there was deposit of specified bank notes during the Demonetisation period to an extent of Rs.27,78,000/-, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that admittedly, the assessee had not responded to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and the AO had consequently issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 3.1.2019. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee had provided the bank accounts, details of clash deposits and audit report. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by rejecting the books of account of the assessee, admittedly, as the same had not been produced before him. The AO had treated the cash deposits of S.B. notes of Rs.27,80,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee, reduced the same from the total turnover and estimated the income of the assessee @ 8% of the turnover. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment on account of non-cooperation on the part of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to produce all the evidences before the AO.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR drew my attention to page 13 of the assessment order para 5, the response of the assessee dated 9.12.2019 has been extracted, wherein, the assessee has mentioned that the account of the assessee was voluminous and, therefore, it was not possible to furnish the P a g e 2 | 4 required documents within four days. It was the submission that he had no serious objection the issue being restored to the file of the AO but then it was incumbent on the assessee to produce the details called for before the Assessing Officer and failure on the part of the assessee has led to the protraction of litigation.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced the books of account before the Assessing Officer and this has resulted in the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer. The paper book filed by the assessee before me contains substantial number of documents of nearly 138 pages. Admittedly, most of these documents are not before the Assessing Officer. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- under the head “others” before the Assessing Officer. The same is not to be considered as adjustment to any of the taxes but is to be adjusted towards the cost of the protraction of litigation. In the event, the assessee does not pay the cost within such time as the AO shall direct, the assessment order as passed by the AO and as confirmed by the ld CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

P a g e 3 | 4

6.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2024.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →