Rectification of order u/s. 143(3) on the ground that full credit for TDS was not given

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case involves an appeal by Mr. Mohamed Ibrahim Ansarahmed against an order concerning his transport business. The Assessing Officer (AO) had rejected the assessee's book results, estimating income at 10% of gross receipts due to discrepancies found in Form 26AS. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals), but there was a significant delay in filing which was not brought to the assessee's attention.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2749/Bang/2017
Assessment year : 2013-14

Mr. Mohamed Ibrahim Ansarahmed,
Prop. Speed Transport,
Plot No.85, Ward No.3, 5th Cross,
Kumareshwar Nagar,
Dharwad.
PAN: ALOPM 9761F

APPELLANT

vs

The Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax,
Circle 2(1), Navanagar,
Hubli.

RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Smt. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.
Date of hearing : 28.07.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021
O R D E R

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(Appeals), Hubli dated 29.9.2017 for the AY 2013-14.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a transport contractor engaged in business of transportation of chasis, buses/trucks on contract basis.

3.The AO also found from Form 26AS that the total receipt was Rs.6,37,18,000 as against Rs.6,03,39,281 shown in the P&L account. The assessee’s NP ration for the current year stood at 6.61% as against 5.98% in AY 2012-13. Keeping all these factors in mind, the AO rejected the book results and estimate income at Rs.63,71,800 @ 10% of gross receipts and made an addition of Rs.39,25,730 to which the assessee agreed.

4. In this case, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Further there was a delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). This was not pointed out to the assessee and hence the assessee had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A).

5.In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of July, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement