M I TELIGROUP,BHUSAWAL vs. IINCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD NO 2(1) , JALGAON, JALGAON
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the
order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’]
dated 12.1.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16.
Briefly, the facts of the case are as under:
The appellant is a partnership firm deriving income from sale
of jaggery and real estate dealing. Return of income for the A.Y.
2015-16 was filed on 29.10.2015 disclosing total income of
Rs.4,45,447/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the
2 ITA No.453/PUN/2024
Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the appellant purchased plots
which is forming part of stock-in-trade by paying the consideration
of Rs.14,82,000/- in cash. Against the said return of income, the
assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 08.12.2017
passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. While doing so, the AO made the
disallowance of Rs.14,82,000/- invoking the provisions of section
40A(3) of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal
was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC contending that sellers had
insisted payment of consideration in cash. It was also asserted that
since identity of the seller is established and genuineness of the
transaction is not in doubt, the provisions of section 40A(3) cannot
be invoked. Rejecting the above contentions, the ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the
Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of
the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After
hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, I proceed
to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the appellant.
3 ITA No.453/PUN/2024
The ld. DR placing reliance on the orders of the authorities
below prayed for dismissing the appeal of the appellant, being
devoid of any merit.
Heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the relevant material on
record. The solitary question that arises for my consideration is
whether or not the lower authorities were justified in invoking the
provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The factual matrix reveal
that the assessee is into real estate business and purchased plots.
The sale consideration of Rs.14,82,000/- was made to the seller(s)
in cash. It is the stand of the assessee from the stage of assessment
proceeding itself that the identity of the seller has been established
and the transaction in question took place before the Sub-Registrar
which has not been doubted. Thus, it appears that the case of the
appellant is that since the genuineness of the transaction is not in
doubt, therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be
invoked.
I have gone through the order passed by the ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC and find that the NFAC had failed to dwell into the
applicability of the exceptions enumerated under Rule 6DD of the
Act and the explanation filed by it. In the circumstances, I am of
the considered opinion that matter requires remission to the file of
ITA No.453/PUN/2024
CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication in accordance with law
after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for
statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2024.
Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 25th April, 2024. Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
