Shri Dinesh Kumar Ghosh, Paschim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle - 38, Midnapore
In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 2015/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2015/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Ghosh.......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant Garhbeta-Iii,Karamsole P.O. Kiaboni P.S. Garhbeta Paschim Medinipur – 721 253 [Pan : Arkpg 5318 G] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-38, Midnapore…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 3Rd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/06/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is In The Business Of Trading In Wood & Timber. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29/10/2013, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,29,280/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Vide His Order Dt. 10/03/2016, Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,22,27,660/- Interalia Making A Disallowance Of Rs.1,11,97,683/- U/S 40A(3) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Had Made Cash Payments In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- For Supply Of Timber To Various Local Merchants. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority, The Assessee Submitted That None Of The Cash Payments In Question Exceeded The Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. He Produced A Cash Book & Ledger Account To Demonstrate The Fact That The 2
Section 144Section 250Section 40A(3)
…lationship with the principal-Same clearly satisfies the requirement of the provisions of r. 6DD(j)(1)- Disallowance under s. 40A(3) not justified." 9.3. We find that the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anupam Tele Services vs ITO reported in (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj) wherein the head notes are reproduced as below:- Business Expenditure-Disallowance-Validity of-Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit-Assessee acted as agent of Tata for distributing mobile cards and recharge vouchers-Assessee made payments by account payee cheques till August 2005-Subsequently TATA issued circular and assessee was require…
