9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Officer u/s.40-A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee carriedon business of commission agency in sugar. The total purchases this year came to about Rs. 28 lacs. The Income-tax Officer in the course of assessment proceedings found that the assessee had made the following payments in cash of over Rs. 2,500: (1) Rs. 5,408 in the name of M/s. Suresh Chander Prakash,Mahavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 19,128, which action of his was confirmed by the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner in appeal. 3. It has been submitted by the assessee s representative that the authorities below were not right in making such an addition. A copy of the reply filed before the Income-tax Officer dt.11th Mar,1976was filed. It was submitted that the parties were genuine and they are local parties fromAligarh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer as to the genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee. He has also furnished copies of various orders of the Tribunal including, the one in the case of the assessee himself for the assessment year 1972-73, where there were huge additions of over Rs. 11 lacs on this score but the same were deleted by Tribunal vide order dt.31st Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19, 103 I.T.R. 706 and 104 I.T.R. 664. 5. In my opinion, there is force in the submission of the assessee s representative. It is no doubt true that the assessee had made payment of certain amounts in cash against the provisions of Rule 40-A(3) but in my opinion the assessee s case is covered in the exceptions of Rule 6DD(j). The assessee has filed confirmation letters of the parties. Admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
