MANJUNAL RAVIKUMAR, PROP OF SRI VEERABHADRESHWARA TRANSPORT,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY, BELLARY

Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is carrying on the business of transportation in the name and style of the of M/s Sri Veerabbhadreshwara Transport, Hospet.

The assessee filed the Return of Income for AY 2022-23 on 22.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 1,30,35,710/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS with the main scrutiny parameter as follows:

On being aggrieved by the order of the ld AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee allegedly not responded to the notices issued, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld AO.

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:

Ground Nos 1,10 & 11 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.

Vide ground No 3, the assessee has claimed that the Ld CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunities to file submissions. The Ld AR submitted that the assessee has uploaded evidences on 26.10.2023 before the Ld AO and on 19.04.2024 before the CIT(A). These submissions were overlooked by the Revenue authorities. The Ld AR also submitted that the Audit report submitted clearly indicates that there are no transactions on which TDS was not deducted. The Ld AR further submitted that form GSTR 9 and 9 C were also furnished before the revenue authorities. He also further submitted that the assessee has already declared profit at 3.8% and once again making an addition of 4% on the payments to entities unregistered under GST is not justifiable. He therefore prayed that the order of the Ld CIT(A) be set aside and the issues be remanded back to Ld AO to examine and consider the submissions of the assessee.

Per Contra Ld DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Ld AO and the Ld CIT(A) has not considered the submissions made by the assessee during the relevant proceedings alleging non compliance by the assessee. The Ld AR has submitted the acknowledgement of the submissions uploaded in the ITBA portal. However, the lower authorities have not perused the submissions alleging non compliance. In the light of facts discussed above we find merit in the arguments of the Ld AR. Therefore, considering the prayer of the Ld AR, following the principles of natural justice, we find it deemed fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld AO to examine the submissions and provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground No 3 raised by the assessee is allowed statistically. Since ground No 3 has been adjudicated by remanding the matter back to the file of the Ld AO, other grounds raised by assessee on merits are dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed statistically.