Income-Tax officer, Hubli V. Sri. Hafizhusain A Kamangar, Hubli

ITA 1494/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9391 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARESH SAKA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1494(BANG) 2016(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 0 9) THE ITO, WARD 1 (1), HUBBALLI RESPONDENT VS SHRI HAFIZHUSSAIN A. KAMANGAR, PROP.: ABDULLA TRADERS, NO. 9/A, APMC YARD, HUBBALLI PAN : ABOPA2469C APPELLANT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI NARESH SAKA JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 19-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-09-2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. TH IS IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) HUBLI DATED 31.03.2016 FOR A. Y. 2008 09. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPIT E OF NOTICE AND HENCE, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EXPART E QUA THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS ABOUT DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 4 0A (3) OF THE I. T. ACT. I ALSO FIND THAT THIS WAS A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE A.O. ALSO THAT MAJOR PAYMENT OF RS. 47,06,099/- OUT OF TOTAL CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 48,31,756/- IS MADE TO ONE M/S ABDULLA SAB KAMANGAR , WHO WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR PURCHASE OF ONION AND THEREFORE, AS PE R CLAUSE (K) OF RULE 6DD ITA NO. 1494(BANG) 2016 2 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, SECTION 40A (3) IS NOT A PPLICABLE. THE A.O. DECIDED THE MATTER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BAS IS THAT AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THIS PARTY, IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE CRED IT ENTRIES ARE SHOWN AS BY ONION PURCHASE ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THIS PARTY FOR ACTING AS AGENT. I FIND NO VALID BASIS OF THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A C ATEGORICAL FINDING ON PAGE 11 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLET E DETAILS OF THE AGENT I.E. A CERTIFICATE FROM APMC THAT SHRI ABDULLA SAB KAMANGA R IS AN AGENT AND ALSO FILED A CONFIRMATION FROM THE AGENT THAT HE INSISTE D FOR CASH PAYMENT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAME TO THE GROWERS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THESE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, I DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : .09.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE ITA NO. 1494(BANG) 2016 3 BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE 1. DATE OF DICTA TION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GIS TRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER