ANKUR ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 41(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 28.11.2018 of the CIT(A)-4, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2015-16.

The assessee, in his various grounds of appeal, has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,41,121/- made by the AO on account of alleged export turnover reported by the CBEC.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and was doing the business of manufacturing and trading of glass tubes, glass items, related accessories and narrow woven fabrics under the name and style of his proprietorship firm M/s S. Sons International. He has filed his return of income on 18.01.2017 declaring an income of Rs.6,68,370/-. The assessee has declared the income under the presumptive scheme of section 44AD of the IT Act. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed from the details filed by the assessee that the assessee was indulged in export activities and has made eight consignments of invoice value of Rs.51,95,761/- as per CBEC data whereas the assessee during the assessment proceedings had submitted a chart containing the export details and copies of export bill which reflects only six consignments of invoice value of Rs.41,54,640/-. The AO asked the assessee to file the justification of difference in invoice value as declared and as per CBEC. In the absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.10,41,121/- being the difference in number of consignments and export turnover.

In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO in the ex parte order passed by him.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, submitted that the assessee has made complaint before the Commissioner, Customs and also has made a complaint before the police since somebody had fraudulently made the transaction by quoting the IEC of the assessee. He submitted that precisely on this ground an adjournment application was filed before the CIT(A). However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the merit of the adjournment application, rejected the same and passed the ex parte order. He submitted that the matter needs to be restored to the file of the AO since certain enquiries have to be made with Customs Authorities and on the basis of that the addition, if any, has to be made. He accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-submission of the difference in the invoice value as declared as per CBEC and the value shown by the assessee in the income-tax return, the AO made the addition of Rs.10,41,121/-. We find the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, upheld the addition so made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that somebody has fraudulently misutilized his import-export code and made the transaction for which the assessee has filed an FIR and complaint before the Commissioner, Customs which are still pending and, therefore, the matter should be restored to the file of the AO for proper adjudication. Considering the totality of the facts of the case 3 and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.