KAUSHIK MEDHI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), dt. 22nd Dec., 2001 for the asst. yr. 1995 -96.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the assessee shows his inability to appear before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. However, he submitted that the written submissions may be considered while deciding the appeal. Accordingly, it was decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and the written submissions filed by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee.

(3.) THE assessee in his written submission stated that the AO has applied provisions of Section 44AD(6) and thereby completed the ex parte assessment by applying 8 per cent net profit on the contract receipts. It was further submitted by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the best judgment assessment is not a provision to penalise the assessee for its failure. The assessment order has to be rational and based on honest guesswork for which some valid basis is available to the AO and, for this proposition, he has relied on the decisions reported in Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills v. CIT T.C.N. Memon v. ITO (1974) : 96 ITR 148 (Ker), 62 STC 195 (All) and Narayan Chandra Baidya v. CIT (1951) : 20 ITR 287 (Cal). The learned counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention on the observation of the CIT(A) that the issue of notice under Section 142(1) is not a precondition. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessment suffers from material irregularity and, therefore, the appeal be allowed.