PURNA CHANDRA PAL CHOWDHURY,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-2(2), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

As noted, at the outset, there is a delay of 47 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, which are duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause, which prevented the assessee from filing his appeal before the Tribunal in time. I, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit. ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 3

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading of rice. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 24.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.4,33,208/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the books of account and other relevant documentary evidence for the verification of the Assessing Officer. It was also noted by the Assessing Officer that the Gross Profit declared by the assessee for the year under consideration was lower at 2.5% than the Gross Profit rate of 3.37% declared by the assessee in the immediately preceding year. He, therefore, proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee by applying Gross Profit rate of 3.3%, which resulted in a trading addition of Rs.4,87,030/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found it more appropriate to estimate the income of the assessee by applying the Net Profit rate. Accordingly, he applied the Net Profit rate of 1.21% as declared by the assessee in the immediately preceding year as against the Net Profit rate of 0.87% declared by the assessee and restricted the trading addition made by the Assessing Officer to Rs.3,07,924/- thereby giving a relief of Rs.1,79,105/- to the assessee. Still 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. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, only one opportunity was effectively given to the assessee to produce the books of account and other relevant documentary evidence. He has also pointed out that a letter was filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2012 bringing it to his notice that the assessee was ready to produce all the books of account regularly maintained at any time, as may be convenient to the Assessing Officer. But the Assessing Officer did not give opportunity to the assessee to produce the same and passed the assessment order after more than a month on 30.01.2013 estimating the income of the assessee by applying higher profit rate for the failure of the assessee to produce the books of ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 3 of 3 account. He has contended that the assessee thus has not been given a proper and sufficient opportunity to produce the books of account and the matter may, therefore, be sent back to the Assessing Officer for giving such opportunity. After having perused the relevant material record, I find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and since the ld. D.R. has also not raised material objection in this regard, I set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to make the assessment afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity to produce the books of account.