9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. Therefore, we are of the considered view that findings and facts recorded by the Tribunal in earlier assessment year does not apply to the facts of the present case. No error in the reasons given by the Ld.CIT(A) to confirm the addition made towards cash payments u/s. 40A(3) - Decided against assessee. - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. V.Ravichandran, CA For the Respondent: Mr. M. Rajan, CIT ORDER PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, dated 24.05.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making cash payments. The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to the AO, the assessee has made cash payment to transportation charges and debited to supplier s a/c and each cash payment was in excess of Rs. 20,000/- as prescribed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 8,64,900/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the AO in light of the decision of the ITAT in the assessee s own case in ITA Nos.1864 to 1867/Mds/2015 CO Nos.125 to 128/Mds/2015 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12, where similar cash payments disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO towards cash payments u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. 6. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that the assessee could not explain how cash payment in excess of prescribed limit comes under exception as provided u/r.6DD of IT Rules, 1962. The Ld.DR further submitted that the assessee is not in dispute with regard to the fact that cash payment in a single day to a person is in excess of Rs. 20,000/- as prescribed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. Since, the assessee failed to make out a case of any exception as provided u/r.6DD of IT Rules, 1962, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made towards disallowance of cash payment and their orders should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to three parties comes under any exception as provided u/r.6DD of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the AO and Ld.CIT(A) to disallow cash payment in excess of prescribed limit u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. In so far as, case law relied upon by the assessee in the assessee s own case for earlier assessment years, we find that although, the co-ordinate bench of ITAT Chennai in the assessee s case has considered certain cash payments u/s. 40A(3) of the Act, but on perusal of findings of the Tribunal in earlier assessment years, we find that the assessee has paid cash towards transportation cost, such as fuel expenses, driver expenses, etc., which is to be settled then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
