TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate. Accordingly, we modify the order of LD.CIT and direct the AO to confine his examination to the verification of payments in violation Section 40 A(3) as referred in para 2 of the order of LD. CIT u/s. 263. - ITA No. 3273/Mum./2014 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2017 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri. G.P. Mehta Revenue by : Shir. Sanjay Singh ORDER Per Shamim Yahya This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT dated 24/3/2014, and pertains to assessment year 2011 12. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under; 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT erred in passing an order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 settin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequently on verification of records in respect of the above Assessment Year, it is noticed from the bank statement of the assessee that the assessee has made payment in cash to various' persons in excess of Its. 20,000/- total aggregating to ₹ 15,55,000/-. Section 40A (3) states that where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In view of the above the A.O. should have disallowed the cash expenditure of ₹ 15,55,000/-. 3. The above omissions, on the part of Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices assessee didn t respond to the notice of Ld. CIT. In these circumstances Ld. CIT passed the aforesaid order direction the AO to redo the assessment denvo. 5. Upon careful consideration in our considered opinion, direction by the Ld. CIT-A to the assessing officer to redo the assessment denvo is not in accordance with his observation earlier. It is noted that Ld. CIT has found the order by the assessing officer to the prejudicial in as much as a sum of ₹ 15,55,000/- were paid in violation of Section 40A (3). In this regard it is the submission of the assessee that there were no payments in violation of Section 40A (3). However, this aspect has not been substantiated and needs verification and the level of AO. The assessee s a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
