SRI RAVINDER KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ITO, BOKARO

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.239-241/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2007-08 to 2009-10 Sri Ravindra Kumar V/s. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Maa Gayatri Ward-3(1), Bokaro Distributor, Sadar Bazar, Chase Dist.Bokaro-827013 [PAN No.AHMPK 6677 L] .. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee Shri P.K.Monsdal, JCIT-DR राज�व क� ओर से/By Revenue 07-01-2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 11-01-2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH:- These three assessee’s appeals for assessment year(s) 2007-08, 2008- 09 & 2009-10 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Hazaribag’s separate orders; all dated 23.06.2016, passed in case Nos.31, 36, 37/HZB/2015-116 involving proceedings u/s 263 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We come to first common issue of sec.40A(3) disallowance in fire crackers purchases in cash amounting to Rs.16,39,774/-, Rs.27,91,348/- &10,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer affirmed in the CIT(A)’s identical orders. Lower authorities’ case is that assessee violated sec.40A(3) in purchasing fire crackers through suppliers by cash payments. It emerges

ITA No.239-241/Ran/2016 A.Ys 07-08 to 09-10 Sh. Ravindra Kumar Vs. ITO Wd-3(1) Bokaro Page 2 during the course of hearing that the said suppliers are from Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu having no bank accounts in Jharkhand where payments have admittedly been made. Hon'ble Gujarat high court’s decision in Anupam Tele Services vs. ITO 366 ITR hold that Rule 6DD of thee Income Tax Rules prescribing certain specified circumstances for cash payments is not self-exhaustive. We hold in these peculiar facts that assessee’s payees did not have bank accounts at the place of payment(s). All this formed very much justifiable reason for cash payments. We thus delete sec. 40A(3) disallowance hereinabove in these three assessment year(s). The assessee succeeds in its first substantive ground in assessment year(s) 2007-08 and 2009-10 and sole substantive ground in assessment year 2008-09. 3. We stay in assessment year 2007-08 with the remaining two gifts issue of Rs.1.50 lac and Rs.1.25 lac alleged to have been received from assessee’s brother Shri Birendra Kumar and maternal uncle Shri Dilip Prasad Barnwal. It transpires during the course of hearing that the learned lower authorities and particularly the Assessing Officer has made the very addition(s) of Rs.1.50 lac in case on the twin donor Shri Birendra Kumar in assessment of impugned same year itself. It thus appears to have a question wherein the very amount has been added in case of both the donor as well as the donee. We accordingly delete the impugned addition(s) of Rs.1.50 lac since the Assessing Officer has himself prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the said donor in these given facts. The assessee succeeds in his second substantive ground in assessment year 2007-08 therefore. 4. Coming to latter gift instance of Rs.1.25 lac received from the maternal uncle donor Shri Dilip Prasad Barnwal, this is not the case of lower authorities that he is not related to the assessee. The said donor has already expired. We keep in mind all these peculiar facts involved to restrict the impugned gift addition of Rs.1.25 lac to the extent of Rs.60,.000/- only. The assessee gets part relief to this extent. His first appeal 239/Ran/2016 is partly accepted in above terms.

ITA No.239-241/Ran/2016 A.Ys 07-08 to 09-10 Sh. Ravindra Kumar Vs. ITO Wd-3(1) Bokaro Page 3 5. Coming to last assessment year 2009-10 learned counsel vehemently contends during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making sec. 44AF and credit balance addition(s) of Rs.49,448/- and Rs.25 lac; respectively. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel wishes not to press these latter substantive grounds with a rider that same are not as precedent in any other assessment year. Learned departmental representative raised no objection to the same. We therefore decline this two later issue in last assessment year 2009-10 as not pressed in above terms. 6. It is lastly submitted at the assessee’s behest that hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Ajay Prakash Verma vs. ITO in TA No.38 of 2010 (2013) (1) TMI 140 has made it clear that sec. 234B interest cannot be charged over and above that based an return income. We direct the Assessing Officer to finalize necessary computation as per law strictly in terms with hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s above stated judgment (supra). 8. These three assessee’s appeals are partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 11/01/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद�य) ($या%यक सद�य) (Dr. A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Ranchi, *Dkp Sr.P.S &दनांकः- 11/01/2019 Ranchi । आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक/Assessee-Sri Ravindra Kumar, Prop. Maa Gayatri Distributor, Sadar Bazar Chas Dist. Bokaro-827013 2. राज�व/Revenue-Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bokaro 3. संबं2धत आयकर आयु4त / Concerned CIT Ranchi 4. आयकर आयु4त- अपील / CIT (A) Ranchi 5. 7वभागीय �%त%न2ध, आयकर अपील�य अ2धकरण, / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड= फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI