The ITO, 2(1), Ujjain V. Shri Suresh Soni, Ujjain

ITA 173/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2238 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI
• Section: 40A(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

SURESH SONI ITA NO. 173/IND/2017 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .../ I.T.A. NO. 173/IND/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1) UJJAIN :: / APPELLANT VS SURESH SONI UJJAIN PAN AFVPS31604 :: ! / RESPONDENT '# $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED - DR '( $ % & / ASSESSEE BY SHRI ) * $ (+ DATE OF HEARING 3.5.2017 ,-./ $ (+ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 5 .5.2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI C.M. GARG, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), UJJAIN, DATED 7.12.2016 IN FIRS T APPEAL NO. U- 209/2015-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SURESH SONI ITA NO. 173/IND/2017 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APP EAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OFRS.2,47,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYM ENT MADE IN CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PA YMENT EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/-. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTI CE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED D ETAILS OF CASH PAYMENTS ON SCRUTINY OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO BIFURCATE THE PAYMENT OF BILL S/VOUCHERS WITH THE INTENTION TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE BELOW R S. 20,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE S AME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED RS. 2,47 ,500/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 40 A(3) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE OPPOSING THE ORDER OF THE C OMMISSIONER OF SURESH SONI ITA NO. 173/IND/2017 3 INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PARTYWISE BIFUR CATION OF THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T MADE ANY PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/- TO INDIVIDUAL PER SON IN A SINGLE DAY AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEES CASE DOES NOT FALL W ITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREF ORE, FIND NO FLAW IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 5 TH MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- &+ # # (O.P.MEENA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MAY 5 , 2017