9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has paid more than ₹ 20,000/- in a day and obtained the receipt only for ₹ 19,000/-. This fact is admitted before the A.O. It is a clear violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) without considering section 40A(3) of the Act, simply deleted the addition made by the A.O. Thus find the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of section 40A(3) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng into consideration of the facts, which are contrary to the facts on record. According to MA No. 05/VIZ/2017 (Puvvada Gopalakrishna) the learned counsel for the assessee, before the Assessing Officer, the Authorized Representative has not agreed for addition, which was made under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the addition made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition before the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the ground raised by the assessee and the learned counsel has also not brought this aspect when appeal is taken up for adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) MA No. 05/VIZ/2017 (Puvvada Gopalakrishna) simply considered the arguments and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee without consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction is not denied, the books of account of the payer and payee tallied and no fraud was established by the revenue. Thus, revenue has made an addition on technicalities and the same cannot be sustained. I find in this case, the assessee has paid more than ₹ 20,000/- in a day and obtained the receipt only for ₹ 19,000/-. This fact is admitted before the A.O. It is a clear violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
