RAJENDRA PRASAD BOTHRA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 43, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2025/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal remanded the Section 40A(3) issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if cash payments or aggregate payments to a single payee exceeded ₹20,000 in a day. For the estimated disallowance on various expenses, the tribunal reduced the disallowance rate from 10% to 5%, noting that genuineness was not doubted in principle.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a disallowance made under Section 40A(3) for cash payments of business expenditure and an estimated disallowance of 10% on various expenses including travelling, conveyance, and office expenses. The assessee contended that individual cash payments did not exceed the statutory limit of ₹20,000 and that the estimated disallowance lacked proper justification.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was correctly applied for cash payments exceeding the statutory limit to a single person in a day, and the justification for an estimated disallowance on various business expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’s order dated 04.06.2018 passed in case No.18/CIT(A)-13/Cir-43/Kol/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s former substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action invoking sec. 40A(3) disallowance amounting to ₹1,18,118/- alleging cash payment of business expenditure. Suffice to say, at the outset, there is no dispute that the assessee has made the impugned cash payments. His only case during the course of hearing is that the said cash payment do not exceed the statutory prescribed limit of ₹20,000/- as applicable in the impugned assessment year. Learned

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 →