AT POLYMER AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT,CORPORATEVCIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its claim with adequate documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee debited Rs. 54 Lacs in its Profit & Loss Account as expenditure, which was paid in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000 was a valid expenditure warranting disallowance under Section 40A(3) due to lack of substantiation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16.03.2022 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 16.03.2015. The sole grievance of the assessee is disallowance of Rs.54 Lacs u/s 40A(3). 2. Though the assessee has filed an adjournment application, however, after perusal of orders of lower authorities, the bench formed 2 - an opinion that the matter has to be restored back to the file of Ld. AO since sufficient documentary evidences could not be filed by the assessee before lower authorities.

3.

The impugned disallowance stem from the fact that that assessee debited expenditure of Rs.54 Lacs in the Profit & Loss Account which was held to be cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- which would attract disallowance u/s 40A(3). The same has been tabulated in para 3.1 of the assessment order. The assessee submitted that Mr. D.Karthikeyan of assessee-company colluded and conspired with other branch managers and staff and manipulated the stock, computer accounts and cash etc. Thus, there was misappropriation of funds which was debited to Profit & Loss Account. However, in the absence of any details forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. AO made disallowance u/s 40A(3). The position substantially remained the same during appellate proceedings. Consequently, the disallowance was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

Having considered the orders of lower authorities, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the claim. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.

5.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th May, 2022.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →