KRISHNARJUN REDDY TIRUPARI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal has been filed with a delay of 20 days, for which, assessee filed a petition requesting for condonation of the said delay. It has been stated in the petition that the delay occurred for the reason that during the period from 10.09.2016 to 30.09.2016 assessee was suffering from low back ache and was undergoing medical treatment at Niveditha Orthopaedic Centre and to this effect, assessee furnished medical certificate to substantiate this facts. Assessee in his petition stated that the delay was not due to any negligence but only of the medical reasons.

In his appeal the assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition/disallowances made in the assessment order apart from challenging the order in deciding the appeal ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A).

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that A.O made addition of Rs. 7,35,312/- towards undisclosed commission and also disallowed Rs. 1,75,274/- towards low withdrawals. However, Rs. 87,700/- was disallowed as not accounted for in the financial statements. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the A.O in his assessment order stated that assessee received commission of Rs. 33,15,916/- but declared commission of Rs. 25,80,884/- only. It is submitted that the A.O’s finding that the assessee received commission amount at Rs. 33,15,916/- is not bornout from record, not correct and is a misstatement of fact. Ld. Counsel submitted that this amount represents only the cash deposits made in the bank account and it is not the commission amount received by the Assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not appear on various dates posted for hearing due to the reason that CIT(A)’s offices are located at different places at that point of time and the Counsel was busy in attending to proceedings at various offices and there is no wilful negligence in attending the hearings. Ld. Counsel submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O to examine the issues thoroughly as there is a wrong mentioning of the fact by the A.O in the

On the other hand Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the A.O for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The A.O shall examine the issues considering the evidences and submissions of the assessee. Thus, we restore all the issues in appeal to the file of the A.O for de-novo adjudication.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.