TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal delays condoned due to reliance on consultant, procedural issues. Disallowances based on account discrepancies. Emphasis on hearing rights.</h1> <h3>Sri P. Narasimha Reddy Versus The Deputy CIT Central Circle-2, Hyderabad</h3> Sri P. Narasimha Reddy Versus The Deputy CIT Central Circle-2, Hyderabad - TMI Issues:- Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay- Disallowance of expenditure and undisclosed investment- Opportunity of being heard before CIT(A)Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay:The appeals by the assessee were directed against different orders of the CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06. The assessee filed a petition for condoning the delay of 10 days in filing the appeals, citing reliance on a tax consultant for advice and procedural delays in engaging new counsel. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication.Disallowance of expenditure and undisclosed investment:The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies during a Search & Seizure operation, where incomplete and concocted books of accounts were maintained. The additions made were on account of disallowance of expenditure and undisclosed investment. The disallowance of expenditure was based on the failure to produce vouchers for verification, resulting in a 50% disallowance. The undisclosed investment arose from a property transaction where the consideration paid differed from the registered value, leading to an undisclosed investment being brought to tax.Opportunity of being heard before CIT(A):The main ground in the appeals was the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard before the CIT(A), resulting in an ex-parte order. The AR requested an opportunity for the assessee to present their case. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, all appeals were allowed for statistical purposes only.This judgment highlights the significance of procedural compliance, the need for proper documentation to support claims, and the fundamental principle of natural justice in providing a fair opportunity to be heard in tax matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
