D S CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CC 3(4), KOLKATA

For that the notice issued U/s 143(2) dated 22/09/2019 was defective since the same was not in the revised format issued by the CBDT. Since the notice issued U/s 143(2) was defective and there was no valid notice U/s 143(2) issued, the assessment framed thereby is fit to be quashed.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. in the assessment order ignoring the facts and submission of the assessee. No proper & reasonable opportunity was allowed to make compliance and explain the issue. As such, the addition of disallowances amounting to Rs. 32,22,259/- confirmed by Ld CIT(A) is arbitrary and uncalled for.

For that the additions made by Ld AO are on ad-hoc & estimate basis which is arbitrary and bad in law.

For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or deduce any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income on 26.03.2019 declaring the total income at ₹2,05,61,480/-. The Ld. AO investigated various expenditures claimed by the assessee, specifically JCB & Excavator charges of ₹14,09,082/-, Hire charges of ₹30,89,675/-, and Contractual work (Sub Contract) of ₹9,99,10,722/-. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee failed to fully respond to notices and produce sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenditures, therefore, he passed an ex parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Act on 30.09.2021. In the absence of supporting evidence, the Ld. AO disallowed expenditures on an estimated basis, specifically making additions of 5% of JCB & Excavator charges amounting to ₹70,454/-, 5% of Hire charges amounting to ₹1,54,484/-, and 3% of Contractual work amounting to ₹29,97,321/-. This resulted in total additions of ₹32,22,259/-, thereby determining the total income of the assessee at ₹2,37,83,734/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee was given multiple opportunities to represent the case and submit written submissions along with supporting documents, but it failed to comply with the notices issued. The Ld. CIT(A) found no reason to differ with the cogent reasoning provided by the Ld. AO for making the additions after taking note of the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and drawing an adverse inference due to the withholding of evidence and accordingly, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the appellate authority and requested that the same may be confirmed.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that one more opportunity of being heard may be provided as even before the appellate authority proper compliance was not made. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter before the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th July, 2026. [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 09.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order