RAM AZAD PAL,DURGAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DURGAPUR

Brief facts are that the assessee did not file income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had received huge amount of ₹2,40,23,282/- from various parties on which TDS was made u/s 194 & u/s 194C of the Act. On the basis of this information the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 15.04.2021. Later on, as per ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 and Instruction no. 01/2022 (1) Unexplained investment of Rs.9,56,627/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that on the basis of monthly average of turnover for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2013-14 the additional operating capital required was Rs.9,56,627/-. (ii) Business income of Rs. 12,53,457/- computed on the basis of turnover as per Form 26AS computed the rate of 10% of gross receipts of Rs.1,25,34,570/-. (iii) Undisclosed interest income of Rs.57,720/- as per Form 26AS.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) when ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order but allowed TDS credit.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred the appeal before us.

The ld. AR challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. CIT (A) as well as the ld. AO erred in estimating a profit margin on turnover significantly higher than the actual margin. The ld. AR further submits that addition made by the ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act is arbitrary and excessive. The ld. AR further submits that the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO when the assessee failed to furnish

Contrary to that the ld. DR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. AR did not submit any submission nor filed any documents/ evidences before the ld. CIT (A).

Upon hearing the submission of the respective parties, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the order passed by the ld. AO when the assessee did not file any submission/ documents in support of his ground of appeal. Since, the ld. CIT (A) has passed the order against the assessee when there was no submission nor any documents/ evidences have been filed by the assessee, hence we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all the documentary evidences in support the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) is directed to consider the submissions of the assessee, documents and judicial pronouncements filed by the assessee and then pass a fresh order on merit. As a result of which the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for fresh consideration.

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