TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r found that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs.18.22 crores in cash to six parties and disallowed 20% of such payment under Section 40A(3). However, the assessing officer was not in a position to actually prove that payment was made in cash, and, therefore, the said disallowance was set aside by the tribunal and the order passed by the tribunal was confirmed by the Hon ble Division Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Chandmal Jain (supra). In fact, on facts, the case on hand is in a better footing as the revenue does not state that any cash transaction took place. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that there is no perversity in the order passed the learned third member of the tribunal agreeing with the learned admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Rishi Raju, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Soumyajyoti Nandy, Mr. Deepankar Thakur and Mr. Ashutosh Singh Advocates for the respondent/assessee. The short question involved in the instant case is whether the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act would stand attracted to the transaction effected by the assessee. The facts as noted by the assessing officer were that the assessee had purchased stock in trade over them by account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft and, therefore, provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act is attracted. The assessee was on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 24th March, 2011, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee s appeal, after ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. That apart, the nature of transaction done by the assessee was also examined on facts and it has not been disputed by the revenue that there was cash transaction done by the assessee in excess of Rs.20,000/-. The learned administrative member had taken note of the decision of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vs. Muthoot Brothers reported in 247 ITR 27 (Ker.). With regard to the decision in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh singh vs. ITO reported in 191 ITR 667 (SC) which was referred to by the learned judicial member, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee, in the said case, admittedly payments were made in cash exceeding a sum of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
