INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAJPUR ROAD vs. TUSHAR KANTA ROUTRAY, JAJPUR

Shri Manas Ranjan Nayak represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. senior DR that the assessee has been non- co-operative before the AO and before the ld. CIT (A). It was the submission that there were substantial cash withdrawals from the current account of the assessee. The AO had treated the said amount as the unexplained income of the assessee by treating the credits in the bank account as unexplained. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT (A) also the assessee did not appear. But however, the ld. CIT (A)

In reply, the learned AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the actual income of the assessee is only about 4 or 5 lakhs. It was fairly agreed that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. AO or ld. CIT (A). It was a prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the AO and the assessee would cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessee has not appeared before the AO or the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) has treated the deposits in the bank account as the turnover of the assessee and estimated the income. We are of the view that the same is not permissible. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and restore the issues to the file of the ld. AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee not cooperate in the set-aside proceedings, liberty is granted to the AO to draw adverse inference.

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