SUBRAMANIAM RAMASAMY,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR

The registry has noted delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not well and advised rest by doctor. Considering the reasons and adopting pragmatic approach, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

The appellant has taken five grounds of appeal which are as under: ‘’1) The Order of the Learned First Appellate Authority is bad and erroneous in law. 2) The Assessing Officer as well as the Learned First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant in proper perspective. 3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing grounds, the Learned First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the plea of the Appellant that the payments were made to business parties only out of business expediency, more particularly when the Appellant explained that the suppliers insisted on immediate payment for smooth supply of goods. 4) Without prejudice, the Learned First Appellate Authority erred in observing that business expediency is not covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and that none of the circumstances mentioned therein are applicable, without considering the larger and broader scope and effect of Section 40A (3) to the present scenario. 5) Without prejudice, the Learned First Appellate Authority erred in making addition of Rs.18 Lakhs in the hands of the Appellant by observing that the Appellant did not file any evidence for the source of income of the HUF, despite acknowledging the factum of transfer of money by the HUF to the Appellant, which is not taxable u/s.10, thereby extending the scrutiny of the Appellant to that of the HUF, which is not permissible’.