Ansuman Singh, Gorakhpur V. ACIT, Circle - 1, Gorakhpur

ITA 69/VNS/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7248 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Section: 144; 145(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH ‘SMC’ VARANASI [Through Virtual Hearing] BEFORE SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.69/Vns/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Gorakhpur Vs. Ansuman Singh, C-102/114, Mohaddipur, Gorakhpur PAN –AGZPS 5941F (Respondent) (Appellant) Shri Arvind Shukla, Advocate Appellant by Shri Harish Gidwani, DR Respondent by 08/02/2022 Date of hearing 09/03/2022 Date of pronouncement O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gorakhpur dated 21.12.2018. The assessee has taken following grounds: “1. That the learned lower Authorities have erred in rejecting the books of account u/s. 145(3) merely because of the N.P. rate at 6.66% as shown by the appellant was less in their opinion instead of pointing out any defects in the books of account maintained by the appellant in terms of the provisions of Sec.145(3). 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.14,62,221/- as extra income by applying the arbitrary net profit @10% against 6.66% N.P. rate shown by the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.6,77,065/- on account of interest on security deposit separately 2 ITA No.69/Vns/2019 when the income from contract work has been estimated on a very high figure.” 2. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that assessee is a civil contractor and had declared net profit rate at 6.66%, whereas the Assessing Officer has rejected the books of account and has estimated at the rate of 10% of gross receipt. It was submitted that besides the estimation of profits the Assessing Officer has further made addition of interest on securities as separate income which again is not in accordance with law as the said interest income represented, income from securities which were given for business purposes only. Therefore it was prayed that the additions sustained by ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee did not appear before Assessing Officer and when the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) remanded the submissions of assessee to Assessing Officer for his remand report and even then the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and therefore ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the additions. 4. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material placed on record. I find that the assessee did not appear before Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has made the assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. Again when ld. CIT(A) gave the opportunity to the assessee to explain its case before Assessing Officer again he did not appear before him neither he produced any books of accounts during original proceedings nor during remand proceedings. Therefore in the absence of any submission or examination by Assessing Officer the ld. CIT(A) had no option but to uphold the additions made by Assessing Officer. However since it is a case of order of Assessing Officer u/s. 144 and before ld. CIT(A) also no evidence 3 ITA No.69/Vns/2019 of making any submission before him is coming out of material on record, I deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain his case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore I order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment order after giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer so that fair and proper assessment could be made. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 09/03/2022 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the I.T.A.T. Rules.) Sd/- (T.S. Kapoor) Accountant Member Aks – Dtd. 09/0 3/2022 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR