MD SERAJUDDIN,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O WD - 32(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

आदेश/O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, AccountantMember:-

A.Y. 2008-09 Md. Serajuddin v. ITO Wd-32(2) Kol. Page 2 2. The issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming and sustaining the addition made by the AO in his order on account of non-disclosure of the receipt of the bank.

3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual and has the income from the retail business of stationery items and income from other sources. The Assessee was maintaining the various bank accounts in different bank. While filing the return of income the assessee failed to disclose the transaction of the following bank account:- SL Name of Bank A/c No. Total receipts in No. the bank 1 Standard Chartered 324-1-018118-1 Rs.10,20,400/- Bank 2 Standard Chartered CB A/c 322-0-533426-5 Rs. 1,47,100/- Bank Rs.11,67,500/- The AO calls upon the assessee to justify the transaction of the banks as mentioned above. The assessee submitted that the above said bank accounts were not considered for filing the Income Tax returns due to mistake. The assessee offered the above bank receipts to tax and prayed to compute profit under section 44 AF of the Act @ 13.50% on the such receipts. However, the AO found that the assessee has declared turnover in its return of income Rs. 7,95,210/- and gained profit on it of Rs. 2,34,722/- which is around 30% of the turnover. Hence the AO applied the same rate of profit and determined assessee’s income at Rs.3,50,250/- on his undisclosed sales(30% of Rs.11,67,500/- = Rs.3,50,250/-). Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has upheld the order of the AO by passing an ex-parte order as none appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of several notices/reminders issued to the assessee. Now, assessee preferred 2ndappeal before us on the following grounds:- “1. For that the order is arbitrary far from natural justice.

A.Y. 2008-09 Md. Serajuddin v. ITO Wd-32(2) Kol. Page 3

4. For that ignorance of English the assessee had no knowledge what actually presented before ITO. Even he was prevented by lawyer to appear before ITO Ward-32(2) with him.

5. For that CIT(A) XIX could not judge the assessment properly and passed order.”

1) The provisions of the section 44AF of the Act are automatically applicable as the assessee does not maintain the books of accounts.

2) The assessee has recorded standard chartered bank account no. 32910181 in the balance sheet but the correct account no. is 32410181. It was just a typographical mistake. The closing bank balance was correctly recorded Rs. 137840.58 while submitting the return of income. Therefore, the question of concealment of income does not arise at all.

3) The Ld. AO has taken only the receipt of the bank accounts and the withdrawals were totally neglected and also ignored the recycling of money in trading business.

Finally the Ld. AR of the assessee has prayed to set aside the orders of Authorities below. On the contrary, Ld. DR vehemently supported the view of the lower authorities below.