TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The alleged transactions of making cash transactions as well as the modus operandi of the assessee of entering such transactions of M/s. Sai Impex of making huge purchase, huge sales and making the payments only in cash other than the bank holidays needs extensive verification. A.O also need to cross verify from Ms/. Sai Implex as to whether similar transactions of cash have been shown on the very same date in their books of accounts. We accordingly set aside this issue of disallowance u/s 40A(3) to the file of AO to make necessary verification along with the application of the provision of 40A(3) on all these transactions of cash payment in the light of various judgments referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer adding the alleged amount of cash payment to the income of the assessee. Addition towards low house hold withdrawals ₹ 1,50,000/- were also made and income assessed at ₹ 1,06,81,640/-. Accordingly assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal; 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of ₹ 1,00,72,000/- by invoking the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. 1.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining cash payment made in excess of prescribed limit u/s 40A(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has disclosed total income of ₹ 4,59,640/- against total turnover of ₹ 10.28 crores (approx) and no cash has been withdrawn by her towards household expenses. The contention of the Ld. Counsel that assessee s husband took care of total household expenditure cannot justify that the assessee was not required to make any withdrawal for household expenses. In this give facts we find no inconsistency in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Assessee s Ground No.2 stands dismissed. 7. As regards the issue raised in Ground No.1 relating to invoking of provisions of section 40A(3) of ₹ 1,00,72,000/-, at the outset Ld.Counsel for assessee submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no transaction of sale of soyabean up to 19.1.11 thereafter i.e. from 19.1.11 assessee stopped making purchases but only made sale of soyabean to M/s. Sai Implex. All the payments made during the year are in cash and each amount is lesss than ₹ 20,000/-, however on various dates the total cash payment has exceeded ₹ 20,000/-. This ledger account of M/s. Sai Impex is not giving a normal picture of the transactions between the concerns because there is opening credit balance of ₹ 4.81 crores and closing credit balance of ₹ 3.11 crores. Total purchases from M/s. Sai Impex during the year stood at ₹ 5,05,20,558/-. The transactions between the two concerns are of good magnitude but not a single transaction h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
