9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification in making the addition which is deleted. Since the addition is deleted on merits, there is no need to go into alternative ground. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 734/JP/2015 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Raj Mehra, JCIT-DR For the Revenue : Shri Manish Agarwal ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 10-09-2015 for the assessment year 2006-07 wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,92,599/- made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find fore in the contentions of the appellant that provisions of Section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act applicable for this year do provide for making a disallowance of only 20% of the amount of cash purchases made exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant has placed on record a copy of the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the I.T. Act wherein a relief to the extent of Rs. 7,70,396/- has already been given on account of disallowance of Rs. 9,62,995/- made by the AO. Therefore, I confirm a disallowance of 20% of the total purchases of Rs. 9,62,995/- which comes to Rs. 1,92,599/- u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 2.4 The ld. Counsel for the assessee assails the addition and the ld. counsel for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on u/s 40A(3) of the Act could have been made. Reliance is placed by the ld. AR of the assessee as under:- (i) PACL India Ltd. vs. ACIT , 38 DTR 1 (Jaipur ) (ii) CIT vs. Interseas, 40 DTR 143 (Ker.) (iii) Shree Salasar Overseas v DCIT 107 DTR 225 (Jaipur) 2.6 The ld. DR is heard. 2.7 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of Gopalsingh R Rajpurohit vs. ACIT, (supra), I hold that once the assessee has filed his return u/s 44AF, no further disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. It is noteworthy that in this case no trading irregularity was found and addition has been sustained only on technical is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
