On basis of auditor’s qualification that assessee had made payments in a manner otherwise than that prescribed under section 40A(3), CPC, Bengaluru made disallowance  without considering assessee’s objections. Order of Assessing Officer is affirmed by the CIT(A). On appeal the Tribunal held that  the  Assessee had claimed that since payments were made towards purchase of liquor from State Government undertaking which did not receive payment in any mode other than cash, therefore, no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) was called for in his hands  when payment was made to a State Government undertaking, assessee would fall within realm of rule 6DD(b).   Since assessee had made his case fit within exception provided under rule 6DD(b), CPC, Bengaluru is  obligated to have either accepted said explanation or rejected after giving cogent reasons. Since CPC, Bengaluru had not taken into consideration objections filed by assessee, i.e., not complied with 2nd proviso to section 143(1)(a), which rendered entire mechanism provided under section 143(1)(a) as redundant and otiose. Accordingly the  matter is  restored to file of AO for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (AY. 2018-19)