Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2007 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (7) TMI 635 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40A(3) - cash payments/purchases - Job work of stitching of clothes for exporters - HELD THAT:- In this case, the assessee did not claim any deduction with regard to the purchase made by him. So, having considered the nature of business and the assessee's acceptance before the AO and the lack of positive evidence from the AO to make an addition that can be sustained, it is reasonable to accept what has been offered by the assessee voluntarily for the purpose of assessment. As an addition has been made in this case and also no further deduction claimed in respect of the purchases by the assessee, no further disallowance could be made. When the GP rate is applied, that will take care of everything and there is no need for the AO to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on the purchases by the assessee. Taking note of the fact that the assessee is a tailor and is doing tailoring on job work basis and also he has not maintained the accounts and vouchers properly, the assessee had correctly and voluntarily offered the said amount for assessment. Applying the principle laid down in the case of CIT vs. Banwarilal Banshidhar [1997 (5) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the Tribunal is right in its view that no disallowance could be made. So, both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have considered the relevant facts and came to the correct conclusion that no disallowance could be made by the AO. The Revenue is also unable to bring to the notice of this Court any contra judgment or any compelling reason to take a different view. The concurrent finding given by both the authorities below is based on valid materials and evidence. In the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Ors.[2007 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME COURT], held that whenever there is a concurrent finding by the authorities below, no interference should be called for by the High Court. Therefore, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court and accordingly the tax case is dismissed.
|