9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition on this account is called for. Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - cash purchases more than Rs. 20,000/- on any single day - AO held that the assessee was queried but no submission /documents have been uploaded on ITBA Portal till the date of passing the order - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO has not mentioned any single date/day on which the cash purchases have been made in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. The total cash purchases were to the tune of Rs. 43,00,000/- which are petty purchases made from neighboring shops to meet the immediate requirements of the customers with regard to small sanitary items which were not available in their store. The total cash purchases were to the tune of 2.6% over the turnover of Rs. 17.42 Cr. The audit report has also not mentioned any purchases made in contravention of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The query of the AO dated 19.12.2019 and the reply of the assessee dated 21.12.2019 have been examined. As the AO has not brought any specific instance of purchases of more than Rs. 20,000/- on any single day, we hold that no addition on this account is called for. Appeal of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17/-), particularly when it was a case where books of account were not only maintained but also audited by a firm of chartered accountants. 7. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 7000000/- is liable to be deleted because this amount was already credited to the P L A/с. 8. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the provisions of section 68 were not applicable with regard to the addition made at Rs. 7000000/- (sustained by the NFAC at Rs. 6941617/-) and consequently the provisions of section 115BBE too were not applicable with regard to the same. 9. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 440000/- u/s 68 is liable to be deleted because during the course of assessment proceedings itself, the appellant had clearly mentioned that cash of Rs. 9600000/- (not Rs. 10040000/) was deposited during the demonetization period (while clarifying that cash of Rs. 440000/- was deposited prior to 08.11.2016). 10. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the provisions of section 68 were not applicable with regard to the addition made at Rs. 440000/- and consequently the provisions of section 115BBE too were not applicable with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 96,00,000/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 69,41,617/- holding as under: 4.6 After perusal of assessment order and the contention of the appellant furnished during the course of assessment proceedings, it is v seen that, the appellant has 4.6 After perusal of assessment order and the contention of the appellant furnished during the course of assessment proceedings, it is v seen that, the appellant has made cash sales in the month of October 2016 of Rs. 73,91,617/- and from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 the cash sales were Rs. 5,87,880/-. Total cash sales up to 08.11.2016 is Rs. 79,79,497/-. As stated above, the AO had verified the purchase details from 2 parties with whom the appellant had made transactions and it is found that, there were discrepancies in the said purchases. Another opportunity was granted to the appellant to explain the same, however, the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence/explanation in this regard. During the appellate proceedings, as stated earlier, various opportunities were granted to the appellant and the appellant is seeking adjournment on one ground or another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. to the Assessing Officer. We have gone through the ledger placed before us. The total transactions debited was of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- and the total of transactions credited was of Rs. 1,88,79,950/- with a closing balance of Rs. 1,20,050/-. Thus, the reply given by M/s Preeti Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. to the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- was correct. Whereas the total purchases shown by the assessee was Rs. 1,53,63,505/-. This amount was exclusive of VAT of Rs. 20,16,460/- and the advance payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Thus, the amount of credit of Rs. 1,88,79,950/- of the assessee tallied with the reply given by M/s Preeti Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. to the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,90,00,000/-. Hence, no addition is called for on this account. 10. Similarly, with regard to M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd., the Assessing Officer found out difference in the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,04,033/- as per the assessee to Rs. 63,407/- as given by M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. We find that the transactions with M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. was to the tune of Rs. 5,50,75,374/- and closing balance Rs. 4,31,831/-. Further, the assessee also had transaction with M/s Kajaria Ceramic Ltd. GVT wherein the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited on 07.11.2016. Hence, the difference of the amounts stands tallied. Hence, no addition on this account is called for. 14. The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground. Disallowance u/s 40A(3): 15. The Assessing Officer held that vide point no. 25 of the submission dated 02.12.2019, the assessee has shown cash purchase amounting of Rs. 43,27,397/- in the F.Y. 2016-17. The AO held that the assessee was queried but no submission /documents have been uploaded on ITBA Portal till the date of passing the order. 16. Referring to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, As per section 40A(3), where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, exceeds Rs. 20,000 (w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19 Rs. 10,000/-), no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. as the assessee has provided no documentary evidence to substantiate the cash purchases made in the year under consideration, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs. Rs. 43,27,397/- u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
