TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, which are on record – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 254/HYD/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2014 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri A.V. Raghu Ram For the Respondent : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, A. M. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad dated 17/01/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by upholding the additions, without considering the additional eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of disallowance of purchases. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by upholding the addition of Rs. 14,41,400/- towards disallowance of purchases. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Managing Director of M/s Hyderabad Mech Systems Pvt. Ltd. He has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 25/09/2010, declaring total income of Rs. 24,81,280/-. The AO completed the assessment on 31/03/2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 2,91,22,001/-by making the following additions: i) Addition towards unapproved purchases at Rs. 14,41,400 ii) Addition towards interest on FDs Rs. 64,720/- iii) Addition towards unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crucial evidences filed before the CIT(A), which were not properly appreciated by the CIT(A) and the assessee was prevented from genuine reasons which were beyond his control in not submitting the same before the AO for proving genuineness of the transactions and as such the failure was neither deliberate nor intentional. He, therefore, prayed for one more opportunity may be given to substantiate his claim before the AO with the evidences. More so, the AO has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as the assessment was made at the last date of FY 31/03/2013. Similar is the case before the CIT(A). Though the assessee sought for time to furnish information and the same was filed before the CIT(A) on 05/02/2014, as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) on 5/02/2014 and the CIT(A) did not get an occasion to consider the same as he has passed the order prior to that on 17/01/2014. We are of the view that the evidences filed before the CIT(A) are very important in deciding this appeal. Since the assessee has not filed these evidences before the AO, the AO had no occasion to consider the same. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the evidences filed by the assessee, which are on record, and decide the issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9.1 As we have remitted the entire file to AO for fresh consideration, we do not find it necessary to comment any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
