Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 25/CTK/2017: Assessment Year : 2010-2011
ITO, Ward 2(1), Vs. Mr Pralep Kumar Samal, Plot Bhubaneswar. No.1196/1984, Nilakantha Nagar, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 4031 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
C.O.No.04/CTK/2017 (in ITA No.25/CTK/2017: A.Y. 2010-11)
Mr Pralep Kumar Samal, Plot Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), No.1196/1984, Nilakantha Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 4031 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri T.K.Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Date of Hearing : 02/08/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 8 /08/ 2017
O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM The appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed assessee
are directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 2, Bhubaneswar dated
17.10.2016 for the assessment year 2010-11.
2 ITA N o. 25/CT K/ 2017 & C .O. 4/ CTK/17 Assessment year: 2010- 11 2. The sole issue involved in the appeal filed by the revenue is that the
CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,07,87,313/- u/s 40A(3) of
the Act.
The brief facts of the case are that there was a survey under section
133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee on 30.1.2013
during which money receipts and other documents pertaining to
payments made to trucks were found and impounded. The Assessing
Officer observed that as per entries in some of the vouchers found during
the course of survey in bunch identified as SSM-26 & 24, though they
pertained to other assessment year, payments were made of an amount
of Rs.20,000/- and above whereas in the books of account, money
receipts of less than Rs.20,000/- are entered even when payments made
to the truck drivers against transport bills exceeded that amount. On the
basis of these observations, the Assessing Officer concluded that
payments aggregating to Rs.1,07,87,313/- exceeded Rs.20,000/- and
since they were paid in cash, provisions of section 40A(3) are attracted.
He, accordingly, made an addition of Rs.1,07,87,313/-.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the Assessing
Officer has not found any evidence of payment above Rs.20,000/- for
financial year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year 2009-2010 and,
therefore, no addition can be made u/s.40A(3) of the Act.
The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee held as
under:
3 ITA N o. 25/CT K/ 2017 & C .O. 4/ CTK/17 Assessment year: 2010- 11 “5.3 I have gone through the assessment order and the submission of the appellant during the course of appeal. In the assessment order, the assessing officer has given the description of impounded documents SSM- 26 & 24. None of these documents relate to FY 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessing officer himself has mentioned that the vouchers found do not relate to A.Y. 2010--11. The addition u/s. 40A(3) has to be based on facts and evidences. Unless the assessing officer finds the evidence that payments made to a person on a single day exceeds Rs. 20,000/-, he cannot make addition u/s 40A(3). The documents impounded by the assessing officer may be relevant to assessment year to which they relate, but not for A.Y. 2010-11. It is important to note that survey was conducted at assessee's business premises on. 30.01.2013.Even though the survey was conducted, the assessing officer did not find any evidence of cash payment of exceeding Rs. 20,000/- to a person in a single date. Survey was meant for collection of evidence. But no such evidence was found during the course of survey. On the contrary, the appellant has maintained the payment receipts where none of the cash payments were made to a person on a single day exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. Considering these aspects, the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.1,07,87,313/- is ordered to be deleted. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are allowed.”
Ld D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas ld AR
supported the order of the CIT(A).
After hearing rival submission and perusing the orders of lower
authorities, we find that ld D.R. could not controvert the findings of the
CIT(A) to the effect that no payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- in cash made
by the assessee during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment
year 2010-11 was found by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer
has himself mentioned that vouchers found are relating to assessment
year 2010-11. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of
the CIT(A) which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the
revenue is dismissed.
The cross objection filed by the assessee is in support of the order
of the CIT(A), hence same is infructuous and dismissed.
4 ITA N o. 25/CT K/ 2017 & C .O. 4/ CTK/17 Assessment year: 2010- 11 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection
filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8/08/2017.
Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 8 /08/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Mr Pralep Kumar Samal, Plot No.1196/1984, Nilakantha Nagar, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar 2. ITO, Ward 2(1), The Respondent. Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar BY ORDER, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack