Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (9) TMI 1346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5% - assessee failed to provide any genuine vouchers before me. In the absence of cogent evidences produced either before the revenue authorities or before me, find that no intereference is therefore required on this ground. Hence, sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this ground. Disallowance of cash payments u/s 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- AR did not bring any material or confirmation from the vendors to substantiate that there is any business expediency for making payments in cash for purchase of the lands. Further, observe that the payments have been made by way of banking channels and also by cash and hence, the argument of the Ld.AR that the vendors are agriculturists and therefore, the amount is exempted under Rule 6DD of the IT Rul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. The assessee further submitted that he was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within time, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. I have heard the Ld.AR and gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. It is evident that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 10.02.2020 was served on the assessee on 13.02.2020 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal against the said order on or before 09.04.2020. The assessee submitted that despite his efforts, the appeal could be filed on 30.09.2020 with the delay of 175 days due to Covid-19 lockdown imposed by the Government and pleaded to admit the appeal as empowered u/s 249(3) of the Act. On going through the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as follows : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining to the extent of Rs. 6,87,939, the addition of Rs. 13,75,878 made by the assessing officer towards ad-hoc disallowance @10% of the marketing commission and site development expenses. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in enhancing the assessment by making addition of Rs. 9,20,000 towards disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act in respect cash payment for purchase of land. 4. The expenditure towards purchase of land was not an issue which is subject matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 11,670/-. The assessee was asked to produce details of targets given to each marketing staff, targets achieved by them, commission paid to each representative, complete addresses and also to produce the bills / invoices towards site development expenses during assessment / appeal proceedings. But the assessee failed to produce the same except ledger account extracts of these expenditure and self-made vouchers either during the assessment or appellate proceedings. Hence, the AO disallowed 10% of the said expenditure as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the expenditure. I also find from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not produced any verifiable documents before the Ld.CIT(A) also. The Ld.CIT(A) has therefore he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e u/s 40A(3) is warranted. 11. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). He pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground. 12. I have heard both the parties and gone through the sale deeds filed in the paper book and other relevant records, from which it is evident that the assessee had made cash payments of Rs. 5,60,000/- and Rs. 3,60,000/- amounting to Rs. 9,20,000/- at the time of agreement on two occasions. There is no merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that the payments in cash were at the instance of the vendors for their business expediency. The Ld.AR did not bring any material or confirmation from the vendors to substantiate that there is any busines .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates