SAJAL KUMAR KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WARD-37(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1948/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 February 2016AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly adjudicated the issue of cash purchases. Both parties agreed that the matter needed to be re-examined by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the disallowance of cash purchases made in violation of Section 40A(3). The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed these purchases, and the CIT(A) had confirmed this action without passing a speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of cash purchases made in violation of Section 40A(3) was justified, and whether the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]

Hearing: 04.02.2016Pronounced: 04.02.2016

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXIV, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 1089/CIT(A)-XXIV/W-37(2)/11-12 dated 04.03.2013. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward- 37(2), Kolkata u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order dated 30.12.2011. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing the purchase made in cash in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act.

3.

I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Both the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that the CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order. Further Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the purchases made through cheques which have not been accepted by AO. I have gone through the assessment order and the order of CIT(A) and found that none of the authorities below have crystallized this issue or discussed the issue and relevant facts. In terms of the above, both the sides conceded that the issue can be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. In term of the above, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court. (Mahavir Singh) ` Judicial Member Dated : 4th February, 2016 Jd. Sr. P.S

2 Sajal Kumar Kundu, AY 2008-09

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – Shri Sajal Kumar Kundu, Prop. Of M/s. Kundu Services, AE-535, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. 2. Respondent – ITO, Wd-37(2), Kolkata.

3.

CIT(A) , Kolkata

4.

CIT , Kolkata

5.

DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /, By order, Asstt.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →