Ajay Saboo, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 5193/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6882 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SS MANGLU
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

~ 1 ~ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5193 /DEL/201 4 AY: 20 0 9 - 10 SH. AJAY SABOO VS. ITO, WARD 1(3) HOUSE NO.958 FARIDABAD SECTOR 7C FARIDABAD 121 006 PAN: ACRPS 7518 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SS MANGLU, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SH. P.DAM KANUNJANA, SR.D.R ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 09.07.2014 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2009 - 10. 2. 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 BOO K S AND ADOPTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 10% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SOU GHT 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. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME . ~ 2 ~ 5. T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE 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 CA USE 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 BE FORE 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. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2016 . SD/ - (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 20 TH JULY, 2016 *MANGA ~ 3 ~ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR