SRI SHYAMAL CHOWDHURY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of execution of works contract. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30.12.2009 declaring total income of Rs.4,23,570/-. The said return was initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1). Thereafter the Assessing Officer came to know that the gross contract receipts of the assessee as per NSDL ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 4 records were Rs.47,81,925/- as against the gross contract receipts of Rs.34,04,983/- declared by the assessee in his return of income. He, therefore, issued a notice under section 148 on 01.02.2011, in response to which a letter was filed by the assessee requesting that the return originally filed be treated as the return filed in response to notice under section 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Office of one party M/s. Delta Construction for whom the major contract was executed by the assesese could not be traced by the Assessing Officer at the address given. However, the amount as mentioned in the relevant TDS certificate was found to be matching with the NSDL data. The Assessing Officer, therefore, took the gross contract receipts of the assessee at Rs.45,15,059/- and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,33,650/- as against the total income of Rs.4,23,570/- declared by the assessee in the return of income.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no full compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing on 24.02.2015 and 30.03.2015, the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to uphold the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 holding that there was failure on the part of the assessee to discharge the onus that lay on him to prove with evidence that the receipts as shown in the TDS certificate of contractee and the TDS on which credit had been taken during the year under consideration were partly shown in the earlier year. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted before me that the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) during the course of appellate proceedings as he was ill during the relevant period and the required information to ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 4 support and substantiate his case on the issue could not be compiled in time. He has submitted that the assessee has, however, now complied this information to show that the gross contract receipts to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- included in the relevant TDS certificate were actually accounted for by the assessee in the previous year relevant to AY 2008- 09. He has also taken us through the relevant documentary evidence placed in the paper book to support and substantiate the case of the assessee on the issue involved in this appeal. However, keeping in view that this information was not furnished by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals). I find merit in the contention of the ld. D.R. that this matter should be remitted back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. I accordingly set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the requirements of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and extend all possible cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(Appeals) to dispose of his appeal expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on August 05, 2016.