MR. SAROJ KAMAR SENAPATI,BHADRAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 448 days. The The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating that due to frequent health problems, he could not consult the advocate due to frequent health problems, he could not consult the advocate due to frequent health problems, he could not consult the advocate about the order being passed by the ld CIT(A) rder being passed by the ld CIT(A). Even otherwise, the order Even otherwise, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) is an exparte order and passed by the ld CIT(A) is an exparte order and the assessee was not the assessee was not P a g e 1 | 4 aware of the same. He prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation petition.

After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, I am satisfied that the assessee had reasonable cause in not filing then appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time, therefore, I condone the delay of 446 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assesse is an individual carrying on rice business on wholesale basis filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 21.3.2018 disclosing net income at Rs.2,98,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on the alleged substantial cash deposits in the bank. The Assessing Officer noticed that the total cash deposit in two banks was Rs.99,27,624/-. Accordingly, the AO required the assessee to furnish the source of cash deposited in the bank by issuance of notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee has not complied with the notices. Even, the show cause notice was not complied with. As the assessee failed to produce all books of account, bills and vouchers in support of the expenditure, therefore, the genuineness of cash deposit in the bank was doubted by the AO. Hence, the AO treated the total credit in the bank of Rs.99,27,624/- as turnover and estimated the profit @ 8%, which comes to Rs.7,94,210/-. Thus, the estimated profit of P a g e 2 | 4 Rs.7,94,210/- was treated as income under the head “profits and gains of business profession” and deduction claimed was not allowed.

At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He further submits that the profit rate estimated by the AO by applying the section 44AD @ 8% is excessive considering the nature of business. He further submits that the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(A) and the assessee will comply with the notices for fresh adjudication.

In reply, ld Sr DR opposed the prayer of the assessee.

I have considered the rival submissions. It is an admitted fact that due to non appearance by the assesee before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal exparte and dismissed the appeal of the assesee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that if an opportunity is given, he is in a position to substantiate his case before the ld CIT(A) as the ld CIT(A) has passed the order due to con-compliance of the notices. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice

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