SATYA NARAYANA PRUSTY,RAJ RANAPUR vs. ITO KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

It was the submission of the ld. AR that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 260 days for which the assessee has filed necessary condonation petition along with affidavit. The ld. AR submitted that the delay was on account of non-submission of the original hard copy of the orders. It was the submission that as there was confusion in regard to filing of the appeal electronically and physically, this issue had come up and immediately when the defect was brought to attention, the assessee has rectified the same and it was the prayer that the delay may be condoned.

2 3. The reasons given by the assessee are found to be reasonable. This being so, the delay in filing the appeal of 260 days stands condoned and the appeal is disposed on merits.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of dealing in spare parts for auto rickshaw and motorcycles. It was the submission that the turnover of the assessee was in the range of above Rs.50 lakhs. The assessee has not filed his return of income. As the assessee has deposited specified bank notes to an extent of Rs.11,61,500/-, the AO had issued notice to the assessee. As the assessee was under the impression that he did not have taxable income, therefore, he had not represented himself before the AO. It was the submission that this has resulted into ex-parte assessment u/s.144 of the Act. It was the submission that on appeal the assessee had produced the books of accounts before the ld. CIT(A), who had called for a remand report from the AO. It was the submission that on the basis of remand report, the ld. CIT(A) had taken a stand that there was no necessity for the assessee to maintain books of accounts and consequently the books of account produced by the assessee was fabricated. The ld. CIT(A) further upheld the action of the AO in holding that the cash deposit of Rs.11,61,500/- was the unexplained cash of the assessee. It was the prayer that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of AO and that the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection to the issue being restored to the file of AO for readjudication.

It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) that the books of accounts need not be maintained by the assessee, does not stand to reason, insofar as, as per the provisions of Section 44AA of the Act, if the assessee proposes to disclose an income lower than the estimated income as provided under the Act, then it is required that the assessee should maintain books of accounts. It may also be mentioned here that even as per the provisions of Section 44A(2)(i) of the Act, if the turnover of the assessee is more than Rs.10 lakhs for any of the preceding three years then also the assessee is expected to maintain its books of accounts. The AO shall examine the books of accounts and readjudicate the issue in accordance with law after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 02/01/2024. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 02/01/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.