9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m for further relief in as much as relief allowable to the assessee has already been granted by the CIT(A) – there was no reasonable basis to give any further relief, as such – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Assessee. - ITA No.4297/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2014 - U B S Bedi And T S Kapoor, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri None For the Respondent : Shri SN Bhatia ORDER:- PER : U B S Bedi This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar dated 22.5.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 wherein following two effective grounds have been raised. 1. The Ld. AO was wrong in disallowing payments of freight u/s. 40A(3) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) while noting the contention raised by the Ld. AR of the assessee during the hearing of appeal, after reproducing the relevant provisions of law and after considering the remand report of the AO and the rejoinder of the assessee has concluded to give part relief to the assessee as per last paragraph at Pages 14 to 16 of the order of the CIT(A) as under:- The facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, remand report of the AO and rejoinder of the appellant have been carefully considered. It is observed that the AO had made addition of ₹ 4,12,579/- on the ground that the appellant had made payment of ₹ 4,30,579/- on account of freight and cartage on different dates to the transporters. Out of which the aggregate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh High Court in the case of Shri Radhika Parkashan vs. CIT 172 CTR (MP) 463(2002) is distinguishable to the facts of the case under consideration. The appellant' has also placed reliance on the decisions of various Hon'ble Courts in support of his contention. However, it is observed that the appellant has not been able to controvert the findings of the Range JCIT to the effect that no case of exceptional or unavoidable circumstances for making the payment in cash has been made out by the appellant. The finding recorded by the Range JCIT is that the assessee had consciously split up the payment in several payments so that each payment does not exceed ₹ 20,000/- only to circumvent the provisions of law. Further, the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly dismissed. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, but from the record we find that written submissions from assessee s side are there in which it is contended to follow the decision of ITAT in Hindustan Vacuum Glass Ltd. vs. ACIT (Supra), to delete the impugned addition as made by the AO and to the extent confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the Ld. DR s submissions, written submissions of assessee and relevant provisions of law as well as case laws cited before the Ld. CIT(A) and before this Bench. On perusing the material on record, we find that assessee has not been able to substantiate its claim for further relief in as much as relief allowable to the assessee has already been granted by the ld. CIT(A) and case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
