Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik dated 13.07.2017 emanating from assessment order of Assessing officer dated 10.03.2016 under section 144(A) r.w.s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2008-09. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 40A(3) Disallowance against cash payments The Ld. CIT (A) in her order dated 13/07/2017 has held that and amount of Rs.60,36,500/- paid by the appellant in cash to the persons from whom land was purchased to be hit by the provisions of section 40A (3) of the IT Act 1961. Here the Ld. CIT (A) has not considered the fact that while deciding issues related to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT Act 1961 the fact that the Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] payments have been endorsed by the H’ble Sub- Registrar, business expediencies, etc. as has been decided in Judicial forums, should have been considered.
In this regard a kind reference is invited to Honorable Guj'rat High Court’s Judgment covering the similar issues in case of Anupam Tele Services Vs. ITO in Tax Appeal No. 556 of 2013 reported in 268 CTR 121 (Guj.). It has been held that, the paramount consideration of section 40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions and as held by the H’ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Grumukh Singh (1991) 191 ITR667 (SC), section 40A(3) of the Act does not eliminate considerations of business expediencies.
The appellants further invite a kind attention to the judgment delivered by ITAT Pune in the cases of Shri. Gangadhar Karbhari Jadhav Vs. DCIT in its order in dated 21.04.2017 and Dyaneshwar Dhamne Vs ITO in ITA No. 202/PN/2016 dated 08.07.2016 has held in similar facts and circumstances that such payments are not hit by the provisions of section 40A (3) of the IT Act 1961.
Therefore appellants state that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 64,66,000/- is hit by the provisions of section 40A (3) of the IT Act 1961, without considering the issue in its entirety.
69 unexplained investment:-
The Ld. CIT (A) in her order dated 13/07/2017 has held that and amount of Rs.60,36,500/- paid by the appellant in cash to the persons from whom land was purchased to be hit by the provisions of section 40A (3) of the IT Act 1961 as also the provisions of section 69 of the IT Act 1961. Here the Ld. CIT (A) has not specified how the provisions of section 69 of the IT Act 1961 are also attracted to the impugned addition without dwelling into this issue in detail and without stipulating the details.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the amount of Rs.60,36,500/- is hit by the provisions of section 40A (3) as also section 69 of the Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] IT Act 1961, without considering the issue in its entirety and without specifying how the provisions of the section 69 of the IT Act 1961 would apply.
The appellant craves for addition, deletion, alteration, and modification etc. of the grounds of appeal.”
2. Briefly facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of plots and land dealings. The return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 was not filed. The appellant is director in M/s.Satyaroop Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and partner in M/s.Tirtharoop Buildcon. A survey action u/s.133A was conducted in the case of appellant on 22.01.2015. On the basis of the impounded documents, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has made cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- to five parties, totaling to Rs.1,74,36,500/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee has not explained the source of Rs.1,74,36,500/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,74,36,500/- and assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.1,74,36,500/-.
3. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the appeal of the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] 5. The ld.CIT(A) in para 5.4 to 5.25 held as under:
ITA No.369/PUN/2020 Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] ITA No.369/PUN/2020 Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] ITA No.369/PUN/2020 Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] ITA No.369/PUN/2020 Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] ITA No.369/PUN/2020 Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] ITA No.369/PUN/2020 Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] ITA No.369/PUN/2020 Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A]
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard ld.DR for the Revenue. We find from the record that even before this Tribunal, the assessee has continuously not attended the hearing before the Bench i.e. 12.11.2021, 20.12.2021, 12.07.2022, 11.10.2022 and 19.12.2022. No written submissions filed, no adjournment letter filed. There is no evidence on record from ld.AR to rebut/controvert the said additions confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).
Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual position and discussion of the ld.CIT(A), we find merit in the order of the ld.CIT(A), hence, Smt.Smita Balasaheb Madhwai [A] we uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are dismissed.
We find support from the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.Y.Pilliah 63ITR 411 (SC) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally to should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before, it setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on which the decision was given against the assessee or the department.”
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd December, 2022.