HARDIKKUMAR MAGANBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM;

The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1. Addition of Rs. 7,40,673/- u/s 40(a)(ia) & Variation u/s 143(1)(a) of Rs. 12,508/-

The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 25 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed condonation of delay of application. Referring to same, Ld. AR explained that the assessee is a manufacture of textile other than handloom items who for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee has filed return declaring of Rs. 7,63,830/- on dated-30.01.2021. the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the business expensive notice for issued by the Assessing Officer in response the assessee on 16.07.2021 and 27.07.2021 had submitted the following details such as computation of income, form 3CB and form 3CD, ledger of bank charges, bank interest, advertisement expenses and other misc. expenses along with written note. It is seen from the return of income filed by assessee for the AY 2020-21 claimed as expense as commission of amount to Rs. 82,96,723/- has been paid to others. However, it is reflected in the annexure-E of the audit report dated 15.01.2021 that the tax has been deducted only on the amount of Rs. 58,27,812/- u/s 194H as commission/brokerage. Assessee failed to produce satisfactory evidences to substantiate the facts. As per the section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, being disallowance for non-deduction or non- payment of TDS only 30% of the amount on which the tax has not been deducted is to be disallowed and added to the income. Hence, 30% of Rs. 24,68,911/- i.e. Rs. 7,40,673/- is disallowed due to the non-deduction of TDS on the commission paid to Ld. AR of the assessee. Further explain that Ld. CIT(A) has issued four notices 27.01.2025, 04.03.2025,28.03.2025,09.04.2025 all remain uncompiled with by the assessee. Notices of hearing as well as impugned order under online mechanism which remained unnoticed by assessee. Further, there was no service of notices or impugned order through physical mode upon assessee. Therefore, the assessee did not have any information about fixation of hearings or about passing of impugned orders. Subsequently, it is only when for the verification of portal about the states of case before CIT(A) the assessee came to know of the impugned order having been passed ex-parte by CIT(A) Immediately thereafter, the assessee sought legal advice from professionals and finally arranged to file this appeal with delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no deliberate lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. The Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has made addition in respect of TDS not deducted on amount of 24,68,911/- The assessee has sufficient documents to explain the issue of TDS to Ld. CIT(A). The assessee's case is meritorious and the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit a detailed explanation to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR, therefore, made twin prayers ie. the delay in filing of appeal be condoned and this case ought to be remanded to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after hearing assessee: