2017 (2) TMI 1532 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of purchases made in contravention of provisions of Section 40A(3) - assessee had purchased in cash gold and silver - assessee has filed his return u/s 44AF - HELD THAT - From perusal of records, it transpires that the issue under consideration has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in assessee s own case 2016 (4) TMI 1440 - ITAT JAIPUR , 2016 (10) TMI 1373 - ITAT JAIPUR for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 wherein respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of Gopalsingh R Rajpurohit 2004 (7) TMI 271 - ITAT AHMEDABAD hold that once the assessee has filed his return u/s 44AF, no further disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3). It is noteworthy that in this case no trading irregularity was found and addition has been sustained only on technical issue of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The presumptive system of tax u/s 44AF starts with nonobstante clause and overrides other provisions. In view thereof, there is no justification in making the addition which is deleted. Since the addition is deleted on merits, there is no need to go into alternative ground. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Addition under Section 40A(3)
The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 40,90,805 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased gold and silver in cash, which led to the addition. However, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the applicability of Section 44AD of the Act. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee's income was declared under Section 44AD, which deems a certain percentage of total turnover as profits, and Section 40A(3) is not applicable in such cases. The CIT(A) also highlighted that no trading irregularities were found during survey operations, and the gross receipts declared were not disputed.

2. Judicial Precedent and Interpretation of Section 44AF:
The decision referred to a previous ruling by the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The ITAT held that once the return is filed under Section 44AF, no further disallowance can be made under Section 40A(3) of the Act. The non-obstante clause in Section 44AF bars the application of provisions like Section 40A(3). The assessee's case was supported by Rule 6DD(g) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which exempts certain payments made in cash under exceptional circumstances. The ITAT emphasized that the presumptive tax system under Section 44AF overrides other provisions, and the addition under Section 40A(3) was deleted on merits.

3. Decision and Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, citing the factual matrix of the case, the provisions of the Act, and the ITAT Jaipur Bench's ruling in the appellant's previous case. The ITAT found that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench for earlier assessment years. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition under Section 40A(3) of the Act.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, the applicability of presumptive tax systems, and the precedence set by previous rulings in similar cases. The decision highlighted the importance of considering specific provisions and legal interpretations in tax assessments to ensure fair treatment for taxpayers.