SURYAKANT JAGLAL JAISWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, BHANDARA, BHANDARA

The assessee has raised 10 grounds of appeal. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 challenges the validity of notice issued u/sec. 148 of the Act. However, these legal grounds were not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 4 & 5 are dismissed as not pressed. So far assessee remaining grounds of appeal are concerned, the same relate to the addition of Rs. 45,18,532/- comprising of two amounts, namely

I have heard rival submissions and perused the material placed before me. I observe that assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2019-20. Based on the information about purchase of alcoholic liquor, interest earned from LIC of India and investment made in immovable property, Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/sec. 148 of the Act followed by validly serving other statutory notices. Partial submissions were made. Ld. AO concluded the assessment proceedings firstly by estimating the income at 8% of the alleged turnover of Rs.4,16,82,994/- based on the information available in Form No.26AS pertaining to alcoholic liquor; secondly, Ld.AO noticed that assessee has purchased immovable property showing purchase consideration of Rs.11,75,000/-, however, as per the stamp duty valuation, the market value is taken at Rs.23,30,000/-. Ld.AO, thus, invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 11,55,000/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 179 days. Even though, assessee filed application for condonation of delay and also made other submissions, Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Now assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. I notice that the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has been filed belatedly by 179 days. I have gone through the reasons giving rise to the delay and find that the same were mainly on account of Tax Consultant, who handling the taxation matters of the assessee. I also find that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and the assessee should not suffer on account of the inadvertent lapse on the part of the Tax Consultant. Therefore, in the interest of justice and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land

So far as merits of the case is concerned, I note that the Ld. AO while calculating the figure of turnover, has adopted the purchase figure from M/s.Samadhan Stores at Rs.3,74,16,554/-, however, the actual figure appearing in Form No. 26AS is only Rs. 3,72,440/-. It is also apparent that the major portion of the alleged turnover is mainly from the figure of the purchase from M/s. Samadhan Stores which the Ld. AO has wrongly adopted hundred times of the actual purchase figure, and certainly this fact needs verification. Similarly, regarding the addition made u/sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) is concerned, it is claimed by the assessee that Ld. AO ought to have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as provided u/sec. 56(2) of the Act.

Considering the contentions of learned counsel for the assessee and also under the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo assessment to be carried out after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee for furnishing information and relevant details. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.