MAMATA PANDA,KENDRAPARA vs. ITO WARD KENDRAPARA, KENDRAPARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40A(3) and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's total disclosed income was Rs. 3,83,930/-, while the disallowance was Rs. 12,43,000/-. It reasoned that milk products are perishable goods, and producers often do not sell them on credit. The confirmation from Pragati Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. indicated that no credit was extended to the assessee. Given that the assessee made cash purchases for business purposes and the genuineness of these transactions was undisputed, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for making payments in cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Mamata Panda, an individual engaged in the wholesale business of milk and milk products, appealed an order by the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's turnover was Rs. 4,11,17,545/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, disallowing a cash purchase of Rs. 12,43,000/- from Pragati Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. The assessee contended that the transaction was genuine, confirmed by the supplier, and that milk products are perishable, necessitating cash payment. The revenue acknowledged the genuineness of the purchase but questioned the justification for cash payments on substantial purchases exceeding Rs. 3 crores.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for cash payments for the purchase of milk products was justified, considering the perishable nature of the goods and confirmation of the transaction. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was incorrect because the purchases were of milk products, which are perishable. The supplier, Pragati Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., had confirmed the transaction, and there was no doubt about its genuineness. The assessee claimed an exemption should be granted for these cash purchases. Revenue's contentions: The revenue submitted that while the genuineness of the purchase was not disputed, the assessee had not provided justifiable reasons for making substantial purchases (over Rs. 3 crores) from the company in cash. The revenue suggested that dairy products might involve purchases from cattle owners, implying a broader scope than just company purchases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & G. GURUSAMY
1 ITA No.785 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G. GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.785 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mamata Panda, Bilabalarampur, Vs. ITO, Ward, Kendrapara Kantia, Karilopatana, Kendrapara. PAN/GIR No.DGZPP 6262 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 06/10/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2026
O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Chandigarh dated 18.3.2026 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttac/10567/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an individual carries on business of milk & milk products on wholesale basis. The assessee purchases milk from Pragati Milk Products pvt Ltd., Jagatpur and sell the same. It was the submission that the turnover of the assaewssee was Rs.4,11,17,545/-. It was the submission that the assessee had made purchase of milk at Rs.12,43,000/- in cash from Pragati Milk
2 ITA No.785 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18
Products Pvt ltd., It was the submission that the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and had disallowed cash payment even though Pragati Milk Products Pvt Ltd., had confirmed the transaction. It was the submission that there is no doubt in regard to genuineness of transaction and it is only because cash was paid, disallowance has been made. It was the submission that the assessee only purchases and sale diary products from Pragati Milk Products Pvt Ltd. It was the submission that under section 40A(3), the assessee should be granted exemption in respect of the purchases. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the dairy products should not be restricted to company insofar as the purchases are from the cattle owners. It was the submission that the assessee has made purchases from the Company and the assessee has substantial purchases of more than Rs.3 crores from the said company and the assessee has not given any justifiable reason in cash payments. It was fairly submitted by ld Sr DR that genuineness of the purchase is not in dispute. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in present case clearly shows that the total income disclosed by the assessee during the year is Rs.3,83,930/-. The disallowance as made u/s.40A(3) of the Act is Rs.12,43,000/-. The assessee has made purchases of milk products. Milk products are the products that can get damage being perishable goods. No producer will sell the products on credit. There is confirmation from Pragati Milk Products Pvt Ltd., that no credit has been given to the assessee. For the purposes of business of the assessee, admittedly, the assessee has made purchases in cash. This being so, the assessee has reasonable cause for the payment in cash and purchases are not disputed. The genuineness of
3 ITA No.785 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18
the transactions is not disputed. This being so, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (G. GURUSAMY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 06/10/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant: Mamata Panda, Bilabalarampur, Kantia, Karilopatana, Kendrapara.
The respondent: ITO, Ward, Kendrapara 3. The Add/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigrah 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026