9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 188 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 40A - Held that - Direction by the Ld. CIT-A to the assessing officer to redo the assessment denvo is not in accordance with his observation earlier. It is noted that Ld. CIT has found the order by the assessing officer to the prejudicial in as much as a sum of 15, 55, 000/- were paid in violation of Section 40A (3). In this regard it is the submission of the assessee that there were no payments in violation of Section 40A (3). However this aspect has not been substantiated and needs verification and the level of AO. The assessee s approach in not responding to the show cause notice of Ld. CIT is also not appropriate. Accordingly we modify the order of LD.CIT and direct the AO to confine his examination to the verification of payments in violation Section 40 A(3) as referred in para 2 of the order of LD. CIT u/s. 263.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by Ld. CIT under section 263 of the IT Act. 2. Alleged violation of Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. 3. Adequacy of verification of cash transactions by the Assessing Officer. Issue 1: Validity of the order passed by Ld. CIT under section 263 of the IT Act: The Ld. CIT passed an order under section 263 of the IT Act, setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. CIT found the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to alleged violations. The assessee challenged this order on the grounds that the original order was not erroneous or prejudicial. The Ld. CIT issued notices to the assessee, who failed to respond adequately. The Appellate Tribunal noted the lack of response from the assessee and modified the Ld. CIT's order, directing the AO to verify the alleged violations mentioned by the Ld. CIT. Issue 2: Alleged violation of Section 40A(3) of the IT Act: The Ld. CIT noted that the assessee made cash payments exceeding ?20,000 to various persons totaling ?15,55,000, which, according to Section 40A(3), should have been disallowed. The Ld. CIT considered this as a violation and the reason for setting aside the AO's order. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee disputed these violations but failed to substantiate the claim adequately. The Tribunal directed the AO to focus on verifying the payments exceeding the limit set by Section 40A(3) as mentioned in the Ld. CIT's order under section 263. Issue 3: Adequacy of verification of cash transactions by the Assessing Officer: The Ld. CIT criticized the AO for not disallowing the cash expenditure of ?15,55,000, which was allegedly in violation of Section 40A(3). The Ld. CIT found this omission as making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the need for proper verification of these cash transactions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the AO examining the payments in violation of Section 40A(3) as directed by the Ld. CIT under section 263. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by the assessee, modifying the Ld. CIT's order and directing the AO to focus on the verification of the alleged cash payments exceeding the specified limit. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the decisions made by the authorities and the Appellate Tribunal.
|
