SUNIL SRICHAND KARARA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and notice of hearing sent by RPAD on the last occasion has been returned back with the noting ‘left’. Since the assessee has filed this appeal way back in February 2014, we prefer to dispose of this appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. The assessee is contesting the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) on the following issues :-

We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The first issue relates to disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee had claimed a sum of ` 4,68,205/- as clearing and forwarding expenses. The assessee did not deduct tax at source from the said payment.

Before us also the assessee has not furnished any material to prove that the payment made to C&F agent was not attracted by TDS provisions. Under these set of facts, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue.

Next issue relates to disallowance of ` 3,60,000/- made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee had purchased tomatoes on various dates from M/s. Gopi Girnar, Nashik. Out of the payment made to the above said party, a sum of ` 3,60,000/- was paid by way of cash in violations of provisions of sec. 40A(3) of the Act. When questioned, the assessee submitted that Mr. Gopi Girnar is a cultivator of tomatoes hence payment made to him is covered under exception given under rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules. Though the assessee furnished 7/12 extract in support of the land held in the joint name of Gopinath Vishnupant Khode and Ambadas Vishupant Khode, the learned CIT(A) took the view that 7/12 extract alone does not prove that Mr. Gopi Girnar is a cultivator of agriculture produce. The learned CIT(A) also observed that a farmer normally would not sell goods on credit. Accordingly he rejected the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.

Before us also assessee did not furnish any evidence to prove that the payment of ` 3,60,000/- made by way of cash is covered exception provided under rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules by controverting the observations made by Ld CIT(A). Hence, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.