ASHA MAHILA BAHAT GUT,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(8), AURANGABAD

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 12.10.2021 passed in case no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036341041(1) involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal, it emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.3,96,810/- on the ground that it failed to justify the cash payment made for purchasing wheat from various farmers. 3. Mr. Desai vehemently supported the impugned disallowance. He invited my attention to the learned lower authorities’ detailed discussion(s) that the assessee had failed in proving the compelling circumstances under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. I find no merit in the Revenue stand as there is no indication that the impugned payments had been made “to a person in a day” as per the clinching statutory expression employed in section 40A(3) of the Act. I therefore adopt stricter interpretation in light of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC)(FB) to delete the impugned disallowance for this precise reason alone as the learned lower authorities have not referred to any specific violation in their respective orders. The assessee succeeds in its sole substantive grievance therefore. 4. This assessees’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 30th day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC)