9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated 30.03.2014. 2. The grievances raised by the Revenueare as follows: "1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting Rs. 2,89,00,710/- added on account of violation of the provision of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as in this case Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is not applicable. 2. That the Department craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case." 3. The brief facts qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished ledger copy of his creditor viz. M/s Vijay Kapoor in his books in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, but facts and circumstances of the case shows that the 'Fruits'were sent by M/s Vijay Kapoor from Delhi for Rs. 3,00,50,710/-and there was nothing on record which may suggest that M/s Vijay Kapoor was required to make payments in cash for such goods sent from Delhior on behalf of the assessee. The Accounts revealed that balance outstanding of Rs. 11,50,000/- was arriving at a series of credit purchases and corresponding thereof. In view of the above findings, the Assessing Officer made addition to the tune of Rs. 2,89,00,710/- (i.e. Rs. 3,00,50,710 - Rs. 11,50,000). 4. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with success. The ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplies made. Such payments were made by directly depositing into the credit of the bank account maintained by the said supplier. The assessee deposited the cash sums from PNB Panskura into his bank account of PNB Delhi. The virtual effect payments were made through banking channel, fully verifiable as deposited into the suppliers' bank account. We note that in the assessee`s case under consideration, the identity of the payee is not in doubt and it is proved in a positive way by getting reply u/s 133(6) of the Act and reasonableness of the payment is also self- evidenced. The Assessing Officer in the assessment has accepted the genuineness of the payments. Therefore, since the genuineness of the payments made to the party is not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms for expenditure shown to have been incurred in cash with a view to frustrating proper investigation by the department as to the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the payment." 8. We note that the supplier has requested the assessee to make the payments in their Bank account and the payments were made through the PNB, Panskura Branch. The assessee has deposited the payments in the PNB to the credit of the suppliers accounttowards purchases amounting to Rs. 2,89,00,710/-. Since, the PNB, Panskura Branch, is covered in core-banking system, the assessee could be able to make the deposits in the account of Mr. Vijay Kapoor (HUF) to the credit of his account at PNB, Delhi. We also note that the supplier has recorded the cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng made by bearer cheque these goods could not have been procured and it would have hampered the supply of goods within the stipulated time. Therefore, the genuineness of the purchase has been accepted by the Ld. CIT (Appeal) which has also not been disputed by the department as it appears from the order so passed by the learned Tribunal. It further appears from the transaction that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT (Appeal) has disbelieved the genuineness of the transaction. There was no dispute that the purchases were genuine. Accordingly, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal has correctly came to the conclusion by deleting the addition of Rs. 15,69,116/- under section 40A(3) of the Act." We note that the primary object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
