AJAY SABOO,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

After hearing rival contentions I find that the Assessing Officer has passed an ex parte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), as the assessee could not produce the audit report, balance sheet and accompanying details or books of accounts. He rejected the books and adopted the gross profit rate of 10% of gross receipts.

On appeal, the assessee sought admission of additional evidence before the First Appellate Authority. An application under Rule 46A was moved. The same has been rejected on various grounds. The order of the A.O. was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before me.

The submissions of the assessee is that he has declared gross profit @ 21.88% of gross receipts and where as the A.O. has estimated gross profit at 10% of gross receipts which is lower than what was offered. The assessee has demonstrated that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Assessing Officer and from producing the books of accounts and records. As the above claims of the assessee have to be verified and as I am of the opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the AO and produce the required details, I set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.