P.RAMALINGAM,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO WARD 2 , NAMAKKAL

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, in Appeal No.168/2017-18 dated 15.03.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11.

Ms.S.Sriniranjini represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mr.D.Divahar represented on behalf of the Revenue.

It was submitted by the ld.AR that the assessee is running four trucks. There were certain cash deposits in the assessee’s ICICI bank account, at Namakkal. Consequently, the Assessing Officer had on the basis of AIR information, issued notices to the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed his return, nor co-operate in the assessment proceedings. It was a further submission that the assessment was completed u/s.144 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer had assessed the peak credit in the bank account with ICICI Bank as income of assessee. It was submitted that on appeal before ld.CIT(A), the assessee had submitted that the assessee had four trucks, two trucks in assessee”s name & other two trucks in assessee”s wife name, and the deposits in the bank account related to the operations in respect of four trucks. It was submitted that the income of assessee was liable to be assessed on the presumptive taxation u/s.44AE of the Act. On a specific query from the Bench as to why this was not submitted before the Assessing Officer. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had fearful of representing before the Assessing Officer and consequently did not provide the details. It was a submission that the assessee had no objection, if the issues were restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. It was further submitted that the assessee would co-operate in the set aside proceedings.

In reply, the ld.DR vehemently supported the Orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The arguments raised by ld.AR that the presumptive of tax provisions of section 44AE of the Act is liable to be applied in the case of assessee, is a new argument. It is noticed that the assessee has challenged the service of the assessment order before the ld.CIT(A) and that has also been decided against the assessee. However, considering the fact that the assessee had not been represented before the Assessing Officer, and that the assessment is an exparte assessment, in the interest of natural justice, the issues raised in the appeal is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

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