ITO, WD-24(4), KOLKATA, HOOGHLY vs. ARAMBAGH FOREIGN LIQUOR OFF SHOP, HOOGHLY

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 15.09.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- (1) Whether the ld CIT( A) erred in relying upon the fresh evidences produced before him by the assessee regarding payment made below Rs.20,000/- in one day either through non account payee draft or by cash against purchase inspire of the assessee's categorical submission at the time of assessment proceedings that “we have been compelled to take such type of banking facility of payment in sum exceeding Rs.20,000/- in such circumstances as we do not have no bank account in the name of our concern in the relevant time. The parties would stop business transaction with us if we did not make payment to the parties through draft in state of part payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- at that time and then our business would have been stopped."

Assessment year: 2009-2010 (2) Whether the ClT(A) erred in accepting the fresh evidences in the form of original purchase bills and vouchers from the assessee tried to establish payment made below Rs.20,000/- in one day resulting non-violation of sec.40A(3) of the Act. The assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before CIT(A) produced nothing conclusive and the authenticity of whole of the transaction is unchecked, untested, unverified and contemplated u/s 40A(3) of the Act stands fully satisfied in absence of giving any opportunity to AO for examining the fresh evidences thus violating the provision of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule 1962. (3) Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting the fresh evidences in the form of original purchase bills and vouchers from the assessee establishing payment made below Rs.20,000/- in one day through non account payee draft or by cash against purchase in spite of documentary evidences and confirmation received from the two purchasers u/s 133(6) reveals that payment made by assessee exceeding Rs.20,000/- through non account payee sixteen drafts of each Rs.49,000/- totalling Rs.7,84,000/- purchased by cash from the bank as the assessee had no bank account for the purpose of its business and the assessee had no satisfactory explanation to offer when confronted by AO.

(4) Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting the fresh evidences in the form of original purchase bills and vouchers from the assessee establishing payment made below Rs.20,000/- by cash in one day against purchase, in spite of documentary evidences and confirmation received from the two purchasers u/s 133(6) reveals that payment made by assessee exceeding Rs.20,000/- by cash in a day totalling Rs.10,56,000/- during the relevant period and the assessee had no satisfactory explanation to offer when confronted by AO.

(5) Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting, profit @ of 2.7 percent of the Net Profit ratio, on undisclosed purchase from two parties totalling Rs.2,47,207/- on the basis of documentary evidences and confirmation received from the two sellers without any findings that the purchase has made by assessee out of the total income chargeable to tax or it has been made out of any undisclosed income and without appreciating the provision of section 69/69C in respect of undisclosed purchase.

As pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset, the tax effect involved in this appeal of the Revenue is less than the revised monetary limit recently fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 at Rs.10,00,000/- for filing the appeal by the Assessment year: 2009-2010 Revenue before the Tribunal and this position clearly evident from the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. In Circular No. 21/2015 (supra) recently issued by the CBDT, the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.10,00,000/- and as clarified in the said Circular, the said monetary limit is applicable retrospectively even to the appeals pending before the Tribunal. The CBDT has also instructed that such pending appeals below this specified tax limit of Rs.10,00,000/- may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Keeping in view the instruction given by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which is squarely applicable in the present case, the appeal filed by the Revenue in this case is treated as withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed accordingly.

(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata; (4) Commissioner of Income Tax- , (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order