No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik, dated 10.03.2017, for the assessment year 2013-14.
2 ITA No.1291/PUN/2017 Rajendra M Gothi
The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- The assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of supplying of construction material and land development. The assessee electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.97,59,490/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) vide order dated 01.02.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs.1,02,54,690/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 10.03.2017 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/690/2015-16) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ground: 1. On the basis of facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,99,195/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) of the Act on account of payments made to M/s. Natraj Petroleum in cash particularly when the genuineness of the payments made are not in dispute.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the audit report filed u/s 44AB of the Act it was stated that there was violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,90,897/. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the amount stated in the audit report not be disallowed, to which the assessee made the submissions which were not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer thereafter held that there was violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and accordingly, disallowed Rs.4,90,897/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter
3 ITA No.1291/PUN/2017 Rajendra M Gothi
before the CIT(A), wherein it was inter-alia, submitted that the assessee had purchased diesel from time to time from M/s. Natraj Petroleum situated at Khambale, Tal – Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik and the assessee was not having any bank account where the fuel pump of M/s. Natraj Petroleum was located. It was further submitted that some of the payments were made on Sundays and other bank holidays and the payments were made during the course of business and the payments were incurred on account of business expediency. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee deleted the payments made on Sundays and on holidays the payments where individual bills were less than Rs.20,000/-, but however upheld the disallowance of the balance amount of Rs.1,99,195/-.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.
Before us the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee is a contractor who needs to get the diesel for his vehicles. The assessee gets the diesel from M/s. Natraj Petroleum, which is situated at Khambale, Tal– Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik, where the assessee does not have bank account. He submitted that all the payments have been made to M/s. Natraj Petroleum and are for the purpose of business and have been necessitated on account of business expediency and it is not case where the payees are not identifiable or the payments have been found to be bogus and the genuineness of payments is not in doubt. He further relying on the decision in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (1991) 191 ITR
4 ITA No.1291/PUN/2017 Rajendra M Gothi
677 (SC) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Anupam Tele Services Vs. ITO (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj) submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer be deleted. He further submitted that Pune Tribunal in the case of Shri Shoukat Ahamed Makhubhai Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.508/PUN/2015 by relying on the aforesaid decisions of Hon‟ble Apex Court and Hon‟ble High Court had deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid Pune ITAT decision. He therefore, submitted that the addition be deleted.
The ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act for payments made in cash. It is not in dispute that the payments have been made in cash by the assessee to M/s. Natraj Petroleum. The payments made for the purchase of diesel to the aforesaid parties are not found to be bogus for the purpose of purchase of diesel. We find that Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (supra) has held that the terms of section 40A(3) of the Act are not absolute and that considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. It has further held that genuine and bonafide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section and it is open to assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the circumstances under which the payments in the manner prescribed in section 40A(3) of the Act was not practicable or would have caused genuine difficulty to payee. It further observed that provisions of section 40A(3) of
5 ITA No.1291/PUN/2017 Rajendra M Gothi
the Act and Rule 66DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 are intended to regulate business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black money for business transactions. We further find that Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anupam Teleservices Vs. ITO (supra) after relying on the aforesaid decision of Apex Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (supra) held that when transactions are genuine and there was reasonable explanation for payment in cash, no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act was warranted. No material has been placed by Revenue to demonstrate that the aforesaid payments were bogus or were not for the purpose of business. In the present case, we are of the view that the ratio of aforesaid decisions of Hon‟ble Apex Court and Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court are applicable to the present facts. We therefore hold that disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act was not warranted in the present case and therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. We therefore in such a situation allow the ground of assessee.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 10th day of January, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ANIL CHATURVEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 10th January, 2020 GCVSR
6 ITA No.1291/PUN/2017 Rajendra M Gothi
आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Nashik 3. आयकर आयुक्त / The Pr.CIT-1, Nashik 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune