ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda, Khurda V. Chittaranjan Tripathy, Nayagarh

ITA 237/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7242 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

6 ITA NO.237/CTK/2013 CO.NO.26/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 THE SAID DECISION WOULD BE SQUARELY COVER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, AND FOLLOWING WHICH WE DIRECT FOR THE DELETION OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3). 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LD CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY ANALYSED THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BEFORE ME. A PERUSAL OF THE FULL DECISION OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH WOULD NEGATE THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BEFORE ME IN THE CASE OF SHRI RENUKESWARA RICE MILLS VS ITO. THEREFORE, I PREFER TO DEAL WITH T HE PRESENT CASE AS PER THE DECISION OF ITAT COCHIN BENCH (SUPRA) PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THEIR OBSERVATION AT PARA 3.6 OF THE ORDER AS QUOTED ABOVE. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS MOSTLY SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF KOOTTUMMAL GROUP VS ITO, WARD - 3, THIRUVALLA AN D THE APPELLANT WAS ACTING AS A FRANCHISEE - DISTRIBUTOR FOR THE RECHARGED VOUCHERS OF M/S. DISH TV INDIA LTD. THEREFORE, THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DIRECTLY TO THE ICICI BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE MISCHIEF OF SECTIO N 40A(3). ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.43,31,466/ - . 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ABOVE QUOTED ORDER OF THE LD CI T(A). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO MADE AN ENDORSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT IN FORM NO.36A FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN.