GAUTHAM KUMAR SUNKATA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. After hearing the learned DR, the appeal of the assessee is adjudicated as under.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed e- return on 30.01.2021 for the A.Y 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs. 4,98,800/-. The said return was selected through CASS for complete scrutiny for verification of Business Expenses. Accordingly, notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was sent on 29.06.2021 through ITBA in faceless assessment proceedings on email linked with ITBA portal. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee to furnish the details of business expenses mainly stitching charges and commission paid with documentary evidences as well as applicability of TDS provisions. Though the assessee submitted its explanation, the Assessing Officer rejected reply of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to deduct the Tax at source on commission paid to Amazon, Flipkart and Snapdeal as well as expense on stitching charges. Keeping in view of the provisions of section and submissions of the assessee with document evidences, the assessee has failed to deduct the tax at source on commission expenses of Rs.79,11,807/- and contract work on stitching charges/tailoring of Rs. 41,65,337/- under the provisions of section 194H and 194C of the Act, thus, an amount of Rs. 36,23,143/- being 30% on (Rs. 79,11,807+ Rs. 41,65,337/-) was disallowed under the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under reporting of income were initiated on this issue separately.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) with a delay of 62 days. The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have gone through the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). According to the learned CIT (A), the assessee neither filed any petition for condonation of delay, nor explained any reasons. In my considered view, when the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in terms of section 249(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, he should have provided an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the delay. Therefore, to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the delay and also the issues involved in the appeal, the order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT (A) shall decide the appeal after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear and submit the requisite details/documentary evidences before the learned CIT (A) on the date of hearing.

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