HULIKAL VENKATESH RAJEEV KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DC/ACIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), , BENGALURU

We have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. The assessee earned commission income of Rs. 91,13,225/-. Against the said income, the assessee claimed expenditure of Rs. 87,48,039/- only. However, the AO disallowed the entire expenditure on the ground that sufficient supporting evidence was not furnished.

The ld. AR before us had undertaken responsibility to file supporting documents and make necessary compliance during the assessment proceedings and thus, the ld. AR prayed for setting aside the issue to the file of the AO.

On perusal of the record, we find that the issue requires fresh examination. The assessee claims to have furnished certain details and bank transactions in support of the expenditure. However, the authorities below have not examined the claim in detail. The identity of certain recipients and the nature of payments also require verification. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities on this issue are set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The assessee shall furnish all supporting documents, confirmations, bank statements and other evidence in support of the expenditure claimed. The AO shall examine the evidence and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeal are hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes.