9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ledger account copy furnished by the assessee, all payments have been made to labours for cleaning of pond and JCB baffling charges. Therefore, we are of the considered view that expenditure debited under the head 'pond and farm maintenance expenses' cannot come under the exclusion provided under Rule 6DD(e) of IT Rules, 1962. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) to make disallowance of expenses u/s. 40A(3)/40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. - ITA No. 174/CHNY/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2021 - V. Durga Rao, Member (J) And G. Manjunatha, Member (A) For the Appellant : I. Dinesh, Advocate For the Respondents : S. Bharath, CIT ORDER Per G. Manjunatha, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, 6, dated 10.12.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1.1 The Order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is wrong, illegal and is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled upon the assessee to file details of expenditure along with supporting bills and vouchers. In response, the authorized representative of the assessee submitted ledger copy of the pond and farm maintenance expenses, however not filed supporting bills and vouchers but claimed that expenditure debited under the head 'pond and farm maintenance expenses' is paid to farmers and allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(3) r.w.rule 6DD(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the 'Rules'). 4. The AO, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to her, the assessee has not furnished bills and vouchers to establish the genuineness of the transaction. She further observed that as per Rule 6DD(e), for payment to be covered under said rules, it should be made for the purchase of agriculture of forest produce or produce of animal husbandry or dairy or poultry farming or fish or fish products or the produce of horticulture or apiculture. But, however as per the account copy furnished by the assessee, it is seen that the payments have been made to labours for cleaning of pond, for JCB baffling charges, for purchase of sand, bricks, jally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e head 'pond and farm maintenance'. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) opined that the assessee did not have any evidences in support of the expenditure and hence sustained addition made towards disallowance of pond and farm maintenance expenses u/s. 40A(3)/40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to produce necessary evidences in support of expenditure debited under the head 'pond and farm maintenance expenses'. Therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to go back to the AO to file necessary evidences in support of expenses debited into the profit loss account. The ld. AR further submitted that even during assessment proceedings, the AO has not given adequate opportunity of hearing to produce necessary evidences. Further, the assessee was pre-occupied with IBC proceedings in connection with two of its group companies and hence, could not gather necessary evidences to support the expenditure. Therefore, in all fairness, the issue may be set aside to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish relevant evidences in support of the expenditure. Once again the assessee has failed to file any evidences. The said failure is continued even before us. The assessee neither produced any evidences nor justified claim of expenditure under the head 'pond and farm maintenance' but seeks restoration of appeal to the file of the AO for further verification, in light of the argument that the assessee was prevented to file necessary evidences before the authorities on the ground that the staffs of assessee were pre-occupied with IBC proceedings of two of its group companies. We find that the reasons given by the assessee for not filing evidences in support of expenditure debited under the head 'pond and farm maintenance' cannot be accepted because right from assessment proceedings to appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to utilize the opportunities given by the authorities to produce the evidences. Had the assessee is having evidences in support of the expenditure, it would have furnished such evidences before the AO or CIT(A) to justify its claim. At least, the assessee would have filed said evidences before us to prove its case. But, even before us the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
