2018 (6) TMI 831 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - payments made to agriculturalist - commercial expediency in making cash payments - Held that - As relying upon case of Asst. CIT vs. R. P. Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (7) TMI 1283 - ITAT RAIPUR it is held that sellers being villagers had no bank accounts and therefore insisted on cash payment - The Tribunal held that payment in cash was out of business compulsion and not optional - thus payments are made to agriculturalist - The identity and genuineness of none of the parties is disputed - hence there is no disallowance - Decided in favor of assessee. Additions u/s 68 - sum credited against the sale of gold ornaments - Held that - Assessee has submitted the necessary details and receipt of the transaction - AO has not made any enquiry or verification regarding the documents shown - he has himself noted that since the period of time barring was approaching necessary verification could not be done - thus we agree with the CIT(A) that addition has been made on surmises and conjuncture without cogently rebutting the evidence submitted by the assessee - thus there is no infirmity in its order - hence appeal of revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961
2. Addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance u/s. 40A(3):
The case involved disallowance of cash payments made for the purchase of agricultural land under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the cash payments, leading to an addition of ?80,00,000. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition after considering the genuineness of the transaction, the fact that no payment was made during the relevant year, and citing similar cases where such additions were deleted. The appellant argued that the transaction was genuine and referred to various case laws supporting their claim. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the payment was made to agriculturalists, the transaction was genuine, and the cash payment was out of business compulsion, in line with judicial precedents and Rule 6DD(g) & (j) allowing cash payments under specific circumstances.

Issue 2: Addition u/s. 68:
Regarding the addition made against the sale of gold ornaments under section 68, the Assessing Officer raised concerns about the lack of detailed particulars in the sale receipt and the inability to verify the purchaser due to late submission of address details. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found the addition to be based on presumption and surmises without concrete adverse material. The Commissioner noted that the assessee provided complete documentary evidence, and the Assessing Officer did not adequately examine the relevant parties or substantiate his rejection of the explanation. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, stating that the addition was made without proper verification and reasoning, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in both issues, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal in its entirety.