Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2013 (2) TMI 379 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction of AO to pass assessment order - The return was filed with the ACIT Circle-1 - Notice u/s. 143(2)/142(1) were issued by the ACIT - Subsequently the case was transferred and commenced by the ACIT Circle-1 Jodhpur Held that - the Addl. CIT Range-1 Jodhpur was having proper jurisdiction over the case of the assessee to pass the assessment order in the matter. There is compliance of section 127 of the IT Act in the matter and the assessee has not raised any objection of jurisdiction within the period of limitation as provided u/s. 124(3) of the Act. Therefore the objection of the assessee has been rightly rejected. In favour of revenue Disallowance u/s 40A(3) Rule 6DD Staggered the payment - Cash payment of expenditure in excess of Rs. 20, 000 - Payment which has been staggered over a period of time - Purchase of agricultural land in cash - The assessee is dealing in Real Estate and land purchased is stock in trade The assessee has credited the whole amount in the account of the parties - Staggered the payment almost every day at less than Rs. 20, 000/- in a day - Credit balance was carried forward in the next year. Held that - It is very clear that the assessee consciously split up the payments in whole of the year which is impracticable illogical as noted above and it was done just to circumvent the provisions of law. There was no justification for the assessee to split up the transactions of crores of rupees in small payments of Rs. 15, 000/- to Rs. 20, 000/- everyday. Whatever plea was taken before the authorities below was not supported by any evidence. Therefore the assessee failed to prove any business expediency or other facts for making staggered payments in cash. The assessee deliberately and consciously split up the payments in part so as to circumvent the provisions of law. In favour of revenue
|