PERUMAL LOGANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD-19(2),CHENNAI, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A).

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 16 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 16 days is condoned.

The assessee filed his return of income and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2019, inter alia, the Assessing Officer made additions by disallowing 20% on the purchase of materials made by cash to an extent of ₹.13,22,600/- in the absence of bills and vouchers as well as disallowance of payment made in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act at ₹.22,52,458/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in the absence of any written submissions/supporting evidence filed by the assessee.

The ld. AR Ms. S. Jecintha, Advocate argued that though the ld. CIT(A) reproduced the written submissions of the assessee, but, not considered on merits of the case. She further submits that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were only on the basis of certain hypothetical assumptions and not on the basis of any concrete evidence or document in his possession and prayed for deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to page 8 of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, the assessee filed only written submissions without any supporting documentary evidence to substantiate his claims.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that against the additions towards disallowance on purchase of materials as well as disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the Act, the assessee filed written submissions and relied on various case law. However, the ld. CIT(A) reproduced verbatim the findings of the Assessing Officer at page 9 of the impugned order and there was no mention about disallowance made under section 40A(3) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply stating that no documents produced in support of the grounds of appeal to rebut the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) has also not discussed the applicability or otherwise of the case law relied on by the assessee in the written submissions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration to decide the issues on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th November, 2024 at Chennai.