9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-9-2019 - Sh. R. K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Naveen Singh, CA For the Respondent : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.08.2018 of the CIT(A)-4, New Delhi relating to A.Y.2015-16. 2. The assessee in its only effective ground of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 13,71.338/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40A(3) of the IT Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of tour and travels and related activities in India and out of India. It filed its return of income on 27.09.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 8,03,260/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed from the details filed by the assessee that the assessee has made following cash payments exceeding ₹ 20,000/- details of which are as under :- S. No. Particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. By way of background, the appellant company made certain payments in cash which are in a tabular sheet on Page 2 of the Assessment Order. Before me the appellant has made submission that the said payments have been paid because of business necessity and are covered within the ambit of Section 40(A)(3) read with Rule 6DD. The appellant company with respect to certain payments submitted that these were made to directors as reimbursement for making expenses on behalf of the company. Further with respect to other payments, the appellant company submitted that the same were made at the evening when the banks were closed and are made over the weekend when the banks were closed and hence are covered within the ambit of Rule 6DD. 6.4 I have considered the ledger accounts submitted by the appellant with respect to submission of the appellant that certain expenses are reimbursement made to directors and hence are covered within Rule 6DD(k) of the Rules. I have considered the ledger but the same does not suggest that the cash was paid to directors for reimbursement. There is no entry in the ledger account which suggests that the amount was paid to direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal to the effect that there was no exceptional or unavoidable circumstance which required the assessee to make the payment to P.C. Jain in cash nor that it was not practicable to make the payment in a manner other than through cash. In fact, Mr. Jain stated before the departmental authorities that there was no insistence that cash payment should be made. 6. In view of these findings of fact, it is quite clear that the assessee has not been able to show that there were some exceptional reasons for the assessee to make the payment in cash. 7. The ingredients of rule 6DD of the Rules read with section 40A(3) of the Act have not been satisfied by the assessee... 6.6 Therefore, in view of the facts, the submission of the appellant without any cogent documents on record to substantiate the same, the disallowance made by the AO is upheld. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the payments were made to the Hotel at Goa under exceptional circumstances. The Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in case on 12.08.2014:- The account page is attached. The actual payment was ₹ 50,000 and not ₹ 75,000 and learned assessing officer has made mistake in writing assessment order. He prepared the order in hasty manner. Your Honor, the payment of office expenses was made on reimbursement of petty cash book expenses. Actually, the accountant is given small cash to incur day to day expenses and once the expenses are totally incurred, the payment is recorded at one go to avoid very small petty expenses. Hence the payment is not incurred in a single day in excess of ₹ 20,000 and should not be disallowed. The ledger is attached on page no. 21. 12. Rent payment of ₹ 25,000 on dated 05.11.2017:- Your Honor, the payment of Rent includes too Rent payments of ₹ 15,000 and ₹ 10,000. 8. Referring to the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Laxmi Narayan Jewellery Vs. ITO vide ITA No.250/CTK/2018 order dated 13.05.2019, he submitted that under identical circumstances the Tribunal has deleted the addition made u/s. 40 A(3) of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
