9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even before us, no material is placed with regard to payments made by the assessee relates to purchases. In view of the above specific finding given by the ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the department is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by disallowing an amount of ₹ 27,90,841/- by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer has noted as under:- 5. The assessee's AR filed a letter on 18.11.2016 stating that the payments in respect of the following 3 items were made through cheques only and furnished details thereof and requested to consider the same. The assessee furnished copies of bank account statements of Karuru Vysya Bank A/c No.1432 1350 0000 0053 and 1432 2800 000 1001 wherein the payments were reflected through cheques. S.No. Paid to Amount (Rs.) Date Passed 1 Ravi Krishna Traders 600,000 24.01.2009 27.01.2009 2 Seethalakshmi DalI Mill 223,590 11.09.2008 11.09.2008 3 Seethalakshmi Dali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,82,189 & M/s. Subrahmanyeswara Traders of ₹ 14,08,652/- and submitted that they are sister concerns of the assessee and there are no purchases and sales. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the ledger accounts of the above two sister concerns, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. On appeal before us, ld.DR has submitted that payments were made in cash by the assessee and the case does not cover under Rule 6DD of the Act. It is further submitted that the payments made by the assessee to his sister concerns are not reflected in the balance sheet, therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer may be upheld. 6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t purchases without any adverse material facts. It is seen that the appellant had not claimed any purchases in P&L account with reference to the two parties. In view of the above, it can reasonably be concluded that the appellant is correct and the Assessing Officer is not having enough ground to invoke section 40A(3). Thus there is no expenditure incurred. Therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) can't be invoked in this case. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition." 9. Even before us, no material is placed with regard to payments made by the assessee relates to purchases. In view of the above specific finding given by the ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
