MAMRAJI NEMCHAND PAREEK,KERALA vs. NON CORP ITO WARD 1 (3), COCHIN

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a proprietary concern and imported the printers and its accessories. During the relevant year, the assessee had effected 10 transactions. The import documents shows that the assessee had effected 16 transactions. The excess six transactions relates to the imports made to compensate the defective goods for which the customs duty was paid by the ultimate buyers. The assessing officer treated the 16 transactions as imports and based on the customs duty paid by them, had estimated the income and to that effect the assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act treating the said income as unexplained income u/s. 69B of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and gave an email ID of the auditor but the auditor had not communicated about the hearing notices sent by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal and gave a different email ID in Form 36.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that all the details were available with the assessee to explain the fact that there were no 16 transactions as alleged by the AO but only 10 transactions were effected by the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the balance is for replacing the defective goods already supplied by the assessee and explained that since the commodities were imported, automatically the customs duty ought to have been paid whether the cost of the materials was paid or not. Moreover, the Ld.AR contended that because of some confusion, the assessee could not be able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) in order to explain the details and prayed one more opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A).