ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. PRALEP KUMAR SAMAL, BHUBANESWAR

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.

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/-.

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.

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.”

supported the order of the CIT(A).

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.

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