INCOME-TAX OFFICER,HUBLI vs. SRI. HAFIZHUSAIN A KAMANGAR, HUBLI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice and hence, I proceed to decide this appeal of the revenue exparte qua the assessee.

I have considered the facts of the case and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. I find that the grievance of the revenue is about deletion of the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 40A (3) of the I. T. Act. I also find that this was a claim of the assessee before the A.O. also that major payment of Rs. 47,06,099/- out of total cash payments of Rs. 48,31,756/- is made to one m/s Abdulla Sab Kamangar, who was acting as an agent for purchase of Onion and therefore, as per clause (k) of Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules, 1962, Section 40A (3) is not applicable. The A.O. decided the matter against the assessee on this basis that as per the ledger account of this party, it is seen that all the credit entries are shown as “By Onion Purchase Account” and therefore, it cannot be said that this payment was made to this party for acting as agent. I find no valid basis of this objection of the A.O. Learned CIT (A) has given a categorical finding on page 11 of his order that the assessee has filed complete details of the agent i.e. a certificate from APMC that Shri Abdulla Sab Kamangar is an agent and also filed a confirmation from the agent that he insisted for cash payment only for the purpose of distribution of the same to the growers of Agricultural Produce and these findings of learned CIT (A) could not be controverted by the learned DR of the revenue. Hence, I decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A).

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.