THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 1 (1), GUNTUR., Guntur V. Smt Chaluvadi Jayasri, Flat No.30, Ongole

ITA 288/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2097 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: I SARISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 40A(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , ' BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.288/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR VS. CHALUVADI JAYASRI, ONGOLE [ PAN: AECPC 6555L] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT ) C.O. NO.32/VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.288/VIZAG/2012) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) CHALUVADI JAYASRI ONGOLE VS. DCIT , CIRCLE - 1(1) , GUNTUR ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT ) ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI I. SARISH KUMAR, DR -.) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / DATE OF HEARING 21.01.2016 * 2 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2016 ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 2 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), GUNTUR DATED 4.5.2012 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF T HIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND TOBACCO. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 28.9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,82,100/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CAL LED AS THE ACT) WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISH ED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAY MENTS OF RS.33,46,500/- FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES . SINCE, THE CASH ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 3 PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. I SSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE CASH PAYMENTS S HOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO S HOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPE RTIES AT VARIOUS PLACES, WHICH ARE OF SMALL VILLAGES WHERE THERE ARE NO BANKING FACILITIES AVAILABLE AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSACTION. THE ASSES SEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES ARE PURCHASED FROM THE AGRI CULTURISTS HAILING FROM VILLAGES LIKE RAMAPURAM, ALLURU, PELLURU, MUKTHINUT HALAPADU, PEDANKKAPALEM, ETC. AND ALL THESE PLACES ARE VERY R EMOTE PLACES WHERE THERE IS NO BANKING FACILITY IS AVAILABLE. THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INITIALLY SHE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES FOR THE SAKE OF INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE, AND AFTER OBSERVING THE BUSINESS TRENDS IN THIS LINE OF ACTIVITY, SHE HAS CONVERTED THE CAPITAL ASS ET INTO STOCK IN TRADE AND TREATED THE SAME AS STOCK IN TRADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSIO N THAT THE RESTRICTION FOR CASH PAYMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO PURCH ASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS AS IT IS NOT A GOODS AND ALSO NOT CLAIMED AS EXPEND ITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH AGENTS AND THE SELLERS HAVE DEMAND ED CASH PAYMENTS BECAUSE FIRST TIME SHE DEALT WITH THEM. T HE A.O. HOWEVER DID ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 4 NOT SATISFY WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. WHILE DOING SO, THE A .O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT WHERE THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE BANKING FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. THE A.O. FURTHER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN ADDITION TO THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED IN THESE VI LLAGES, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED SITES AT ONGOLE AND CHEERALA, WHICH A RE URBAN AREAS WHERE THE BANKING FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE, THEREFO RE, THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(G) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND HE NCE, CASH PAYMENTS ATTRACTS DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(3) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. FURTHER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAV E PAID THE PAYMENTS THROUGH AGENTS, HOWEVER, FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETA ILS ABOUT THE AGENTS AND ALSO THERE WAS NO COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE DEBI TED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE A.O. HAS DISA LLOWED THE AMOUNT U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED THE LANDS FROM THE AGRICULTURIST AND THEY ARE RESIDING IN VILLAGES WHERE THERE IS NO BANKING FACILITIES PR OVIDED AS ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT SHE HAD MADE THE ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 5 PAYMENTS TO THE SELLERS OF THE LAND THROUGH AGENTS, THEREFORE, HER CASE IS COVERED BY EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD(K) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT S HE WAS NEW ENTRANT TO THE BUSINESS AND PURCHASED PROPERTIES FIRST TIME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE VENDORS BEING AGRICULTURISTS DID NOT BELIEVE HER CREDENTIALS, INSISTED FOR CASH PAYMENT S. SINCE, VENDORS HAVE INSISTED CASH PAYMENTS, SHE WAS COMPELLED TO M AKE THE CASH PAYMENTS TO THEM. THEREFORE, THERE IS A BUSINESS E XPEDIENCY IN MAKING THE CASH PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND S AND ALSO HER CASE IS COVERED UNDER EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD(G) AND RULE 6DD(K) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT T HE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3&3A OF THE ACT, BY THE FINAN CE ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 1.4.2009 PROVIDES A PROVISO, WHICH IN UNEQUIVOCAL T ERMS PROVIDED THAT IN CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CASES AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRO VISIONS OF SUB SECTION 3 & 3A SHALL NOT APPLY. THE CIT(A) FURTHER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2009 AND ACCORDINGLY WILL APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND SU BSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CASE C OVERED UNDER EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(J). WITH THESE OB SERVATIONS, DIRECTED ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 6 THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 4. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD(J) AS AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 40A(3) WITHOUT MENTIONING THE RE LEVANT CLAUSE IN THE SAID RULE WHICH IS APPLICABLE AND ALSO WITHOUT FURN ISHING THE REASONS FOR COMING TO HIS CONCLUSION. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED IN APPEAL THE SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE FACT BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE VILLAGES AND TOWNS WHERE THE PAYEES WERE RESIDING WERE ALREADY COVERED BY THE BANKING FACILI TIES AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND CONSEQUENTLY THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN RUL E 6DD(G) IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL SITE S IN VILLAGES AND URBAN AREAS BY MAKING CASH PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, THE CIT( A) WAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TOTAL PAYMENT IS COVERED UNDER EXCE PTION PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD(G) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS PROPERLY . ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 7 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT CASH PAYMENT SHALL NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT, SINCE THEY ARE MADE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES PRESCRIBED IN RULE 6DD OF THE I.T. RU LES, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF BANKING FACILITIES AVAILAB LE, BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF SU B-REGISTRAR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT IN DOUBT. TH E VENDORS ARE AGRICULTURISTS, HAILING FROM SMALL VILLAGES WHERE THERE WAS NO BANKING FACILITY AVAILABLE AND ALSO THE VENDORS HAVE REFUSE D TO TAKE THE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE OR DRAFT. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T SINCE, SHE IS NEW TO THE BUSINESS AND THE VENDORS DID NOT BELIEVE HER CR EDENTIALS, HAVE INSISTED FOR CASH PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS BU SINESS EXPEDIENCY IN MAKING THE CASH PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTUR AL LANDS, WHICH CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SEC. 40A(3). THE A.R. F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH MEDIATORS/AGENT S. THE ASSESSEE IS NEW TO THIS BUSINESS AND ALSO MET THE VENDORS FO R THE FIRST TIME AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CA SE IS COVERED UNDER EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(K) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE A.R. RELIED UPON ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 8 BENCH DECISION, IN THE CASE OF KALLAM HOUSING AND R EAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.242/VIZAG/2012. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIONS U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE R EASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF PRO PERTIES. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF LANDS AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL SITES, WHE RE THERE IS A BANKING FACILITY AVAILABLE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(G) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS PURCHAS ED THE LANDS FROM AGRICULTURISTS RESIDING IN SMALL VILLAGES, WHERE TH ERE IS NO BANKING FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CON TENDED THAT THE VENDORS HAVE INSISTED FOR CASH PAYMENTS, AS THEY HAVE DOUBT ED THE CREDENTIALS OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE SHE HAS DEALT FIRST TIME W ITH THEM. THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION NEED TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS, WHETHER THERE IS ANY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND ALSO IS THERE ANY BANKING FACILITY AVAILABLE, WHERE THE TRANSACTION T OOK PLACE. IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE THAT IN GENERAL, IN VILLAGES TRANSA CTIONS ARE MADE BY CASH, NOT BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE TRANSACTIO NS ARE NOT GENUINE OR ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 9 THEY WANT TO AVOID BANKS BUT, BECAUSE IT IS STILL A CONVENIENT MODE OF TRANSACTION AND PEOPLE ARE MORE COMFORTABLE IN DEAL ING WITH CASH. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS COMPELLED TO MAKE CAS H PAYMENTS AS THERE WAS NO BANKING FACILITY IS AVAILABLE WHERE TH E TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. THE A.O. OBSER VED THAT THERE WAS BANKING FACILITY IS AVAILABLE, WHERE THE TRANSACTIO N TOOK PLACE. 7. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, PROVIDE S FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPEN DITURE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH ANY PAYMENT IS MADE TO ANY PERSON IN CASH IN EXCESS OF THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. SIMILARLY, RULE 6DD PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR CASH PAYMENTS. AS PER RULE 6DD(G) AND RULE 6DD(K) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, SPECIFIC EXEMPTION IS PROVIDED FOR CASH PAYM ENTS WHERE THERE IS NO BANKING FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE IN A VILLAGE OR TOWN AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSACTION AND ALSO SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH AN AGENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGA RD TO THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CASH PAYMENTS. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEES CAS E COVERED UNDER EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD(G) OR RULE 6DD(K) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE A.O. THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CASH PAYMENTS, BANKING FACILITIES ARE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE. IT WAS ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 10 ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PURCHASED SITE IN URBAN AREAS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SH E HAS MADE THE CASH PAYMENT IN A REMOTE PLACE WHERE THERE IS NO BANKING FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE AND ALSO THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH AG ENTS. THOUGH, A.O. CLAIMS THAT THERE IS A BANKING FACILITY AVAILA BLE, HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS FINDINGS WITH ANY EVIDENCES. AT TH E SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES IN SU PPORT OF HER CLAIM THAT THERE WAS NO BANKING FACILITY AVAILABLE IN THE PLAC ES WHERE THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE. THERE IS NO CLEAR FACTS EME RGED FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, TO MEET THE EN DS OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O., TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE IS ANY BANKING FACILITY IS PROVIDED W HERE THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSACTION. IN CASE, AS CO NTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF THERE IS NO BANKING FACILITY IS AVAILA BLE AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSACTION, CERTAINLY, THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS U NDER THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(G) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. AND DIR ECT THE A.O. TO VERIFY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER LAW. 8. COMING TO THE OTHER ASPECT OF THE CASE. THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE HAS MADE THE CASH PAYMENT THRO UGH AGENTS, ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 11 THEREFORE HER CASE COVERED BY EXCEPTION PROVIDED UN DER RULE 6DD(K). THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THOUGH, ASSESSEE C LAIMED THAT SHE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH AGENTS, SHE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION TO SAY THAT SHE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT S THROUGH AGENTS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH AGENTS AND TO THIS EFFECT FILED NECESSARY A FFIDAVIT FROM THE AGENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A), STATING THAT THEY HAVE AC TED AS AGENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT I S AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE XEROX COPIES OF AFFI DAVIT FROM THE AGENTS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL O F THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE PERSONS STATED TH AT THEY HAVE ACTED AS AGENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO FACILITATE THE TRANSACTIO N. THE A.O. DENIED HAVING FILED ANY SUCH AFFIDAVITS BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE CIT(A) RECORDED A FINDING OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AFFIDAVITS. THERE ARE DIVERGENT FACTS EME RGED FROM THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND FROM THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE A.O. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISC USSIONS. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. AND DIRECT ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 12 THE A.O. TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH AGENTS, IF AT ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THR OUGH AGENTS, THEN CERTAINLY THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS UNDER THE EXCEP TION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(K). ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE GROUND RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE C.O. FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH FEB16. SD/- SD/- (. ) ( . ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ( G. MANJUNATHA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 /VISAKHAPATNAM: 8 / DATED : 5.2.2016 VG/SPS ITA NO.288/VIZAG/2012 & CO 32/VIZAG/2012 CHALUVADI JAYASREE, ONGOLE 13 * - :4 ;4/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ) / THE APPELLANT THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR 2. -.) / THE RESPONDENT SMT. CHALUVADI JAYASRI, FLAT NO.30, 3 RD FLOOR, BHAGYANAGAR RESIDENCY APARTMENTS, BHAGYA NAGAR, ONG OLE KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR 3. > / THE CIT, GUNTUR 4. > () / THE CIT (A), GUNTUR 5. 4 - C, 2 C , 4 / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // HI C ( SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ) 2 C , 4 / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM