9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are the grounds of appeal: "1. That the order of the learned Asstt. CIT as well as CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned Asstt. CIT as well as learned CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi, acted arbitrarily, illegally in making an addition of Rs. 89,023 under s. 40A(3) of the IT Act. 3. That the assessee craves right to add, delete, modify, substitute any one or more of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount, the same was added to the income of the assessee by the AO against which the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who has reduced the disallowance by Rs. 20,925 and sustained the addition of Rs. 89,023 against which, still dissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. It has been held by the learned CIT(A) that the payments made on26th Dec., 1991,10th Jan., 1992and24th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive has relied on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Giridharilal Goenka vs. CIT (1989) 80 CTR (Cal) 140 : (1989) 179 ITR 122 (Cal) in which it has been held that the object of s. 40A(3) is to check evasion of tax and not to deprive the assessee of the deduction which he is otherwise entitled to claim. Where the amount was paid in cash or received in cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
