The assessing authority was justified in adding the sum of Rs.4,34,955 to the income of the appellant based on the return and accompanying documents, and non-issuance of notice before sending intimation under Section 143(1)(a) did not result in any prejudice to the appellant-assesses.

S.R. Nayak, J.—The assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge of this court, dated January 22, 1999, in Writ Petition No. 43139 of 1993 has preferred this writ appeal.

2. The facts in brief are :

3. The appellant who claims to be a civil contractor declared a total income of Rs.86,810 in his return of income filed on February 6, 1992, for the assessment year 1991-92. The return was accompanied by a profit and loss account, balance-sheet, statement of tax deducted at source, etc. The assessing authority in intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), computed the total income of the appellant-assesses at Rs.5,21,760, as, while processing the return, he found that the assessee had short-totaled the gross bills received from the Karnataka Housing Board (K. H. B). Consequently, the assessing authority added the difference (Rs. 27,55,383 minus 23,20,428) of Rs.4,34,955 to the income declared by the appellant.

4. Aggrieved by the said action of the assessing authority, the appellant preferred revision under Section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner Income Tax, Karnataka-II, Bangalore. Before the Commissioner, the appellant contended that the income declared was not based on any books of account, as he did not maintain regular books of account ; that the assessing authority failed to allow expenses against additional gross receipts of Rs.4,34,955 ; and, if, the expenses are allowed, his total income including the income declared earlier, would be Rs.90,140 only as against Rs.86,810. In support of that plea, the appellant-assesses filed a computation statement wherein he estimated profit at eight per cent. on net contract receipts and claimed depreciation at Rs.60,421. The Commissioner of Income Tax having opined that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account filed along with the return, are not in relation to the entire gross bills of Rs.27,55,383, did not find any merit in the revision petition. Consequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax by his order dated October 29, 1993, dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the intimation issued by the assessing authority under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

5. The appellant-assesses, feeling aggrieved by the above order of the Commissioner of Income Tax preferred Writ Petition No. 43139 of 1993, A learned single judge of this court having opined that the intimation issued by the assessing authority under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was based on the statement submitted by the appellant-assesses himself, which accompanied the return, held that there was nothing wrong on the part of the assessing authority in issuing the impugned intimation. In the result, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal by the assessee.

6. We have heard Sri G. Sarangan, learned senior counsel for the appellant-assesses, and Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. The only contention put forth by Sri G. Sarangan before us was that the assessing authority ought not to have added a sum of Rs.4,34,955 to the income of the appellant-assesses without notice to the appellant-assesses and giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. According to Sri G. Sarangan, such a course was imperative for the assessing authority, particularly having regard to the fact that, in the return filed by the assessee, no allowance has been provided for the materials, wood, sand, labour, etc. Sri G. Sarangan pointed out that a specific ground in that regard was taken in the revision petition. Sri G. Sarangan, in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgments of this court in GOD GRANITES Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and Others, (1996) 218 ITR 298 KAR and Income-tax Officer Vs. Mandira D. Vakharia, (2001) 250 ITR 432 KAR , judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jct Ltd. and another Vs. Hari Kishan and a