DCIT, Jaipur V. SALASAR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 416/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5225 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROLI AGARWAL CIT DHK
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 148; 263

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.416 /JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., B-14, HEERA NAGAR, GANGA YAMUNA CROSSING SHIPRA PATH, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAGCS 8940L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL, (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROLI AGARWAL (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03.06.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/06/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 05.02.2015 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 5,18,11,442/- HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND IS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY?. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.74,51,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40A(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 . ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS A COLONIZER AND ITS BUSINESS IS OF BUYING AGRICULTURAL LAND, GE TTING IT CONVERTED INTO RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL LAND AFTER OBTAINING NECESSA RY PERMISSION FROM JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIVIDING THE LAND INTO PLOTS AND SELLING THESE PLOTS DIRECTLY AS WELL AS THROUGH BROKERS. THE COMPANY I S ALSO SELLING PLOTS ON COMMISSION BASIS OWNED BY SOMEONE ELSE AFTER DEVELO PING THE LAND. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE PROVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 5,18,11,442/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PROVISION MADE FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE LD. AO IN HIS ORDER STATED THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAN D IS VERY LOW AS COMPARED TO THE PROVISIONS MADE. THE MAJOR PART OF PROVISION S HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD FOR YEARS TOGETHER WITHOUT INCURRING THEM FOR DEVEL OPMENT OF LAND. IT CAN ALSO BE SEEN THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 THERE WAS CLOSING BALANCE OF PROVISIONS OF RS.2,58,81,034/- FOR TWO SCHEMES WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF CLOSING BALANCE OF THE PROVISIONS FOR A.Y. 2012-13 IS RS. 43,72,23,60 1/- AND THE NUMBER OF SCHEMES ARE NINE. THIS IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE FUNDS OF PROVISIONS MADE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND ARE BEING USED FOR EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS RATHER THAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,18,11,442/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS PROVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE DECLARED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOLL OWING THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE ITAT. NOW THE REVENUE IS APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF LD CIT(A). ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 3 2.1 THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVE RED BY THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN FOLLOWING CASES:- (A) ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR M /S SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS (PVT) LTD. VS. CIT-I JAIPUR ITA NO. 433/JP /2011 WITH REFERENCE TO ORDER U/S 263 PASSED BY CIT. (B) ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR M/S SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS (PVT) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR IN I TA NO.910/JP/2013 (AY 2005-06), 911/JP/2013 (AY 2007-08) AND 912/JP/2 013 (AY 2008-09) WITH REFERENCE TO ORDER BY AO U/S 148 ON SAME ISSUE . THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO REJECTED THE A SSESSEES CLAIM ON THE SAME GROUND AND ON SAME FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH HE HAS DI SALLOWED THE PROVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES FOR A.YS. 2005-06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. IN RESPECT OF EARLIER YEARS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE PROVI SION FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AND THE DEPARTMENT FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO HELD ON M ERIT THAT THE PROVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IS ALLOWABLE AS THE LIABILITY IS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE THE DECISION OF HONBLE IT AT OF EARLIER YEARS IS APPLICABLE FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. 2.2 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS PREVAIL ING ACCOUNTING POLICY OF ASSESSEE AND OTHER ASSESSES OF SIMILAR TRADE TO MAK E PROVISION OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED ON AREA SOLD IN ORDER TO AR RIVE AT THE TRUE AND CORRECT PROFIT AND THE ASSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING T HIS ACCOUNTING PRACTICE. IT ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 4 WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND A.Y. 2009-10 WERE COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX A CT, AND THE ESTIMATION MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AGAINST T HE PLOTS SOLD WERE ALLOWED AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 2.3 THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH I N ITA NO. 910, 911 & 912/JP/13 DATED 28.03.2014 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ...4.9 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND T HE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A DDITION OF RS. 1,07,47,296/-, RS. 11,21,74,877/- AND OF RS. 16,35, 62,072/- IN A.Y. 2005- 06, 2007-08 & A.Y. 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY BY DISALLOW ING PROVISION DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS F UTURE LIABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AGAINST THE SALE OF PLOTS BOOK ED BY IT IN THESE YEARS. THUS THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2005- 06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ARE UPHELD IN THIS REGARD. 2.4 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES, PROVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 5,18,11,4 42/- IS ALLOWED AS AN ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 3. IN GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE D ELETION OF RS. 74,51,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 3.1 BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- AGAINST PURCHASE OF LAND DURI NG THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE C HEQUE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 5 ABOVE MENTIONED EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED I N VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE IT ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF VOUCHERS OF THESE PAYMENTS AND PLEADED TH AT PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH ON BANK HOLIDAYS OR AFTER BANKING HOURS. T HE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE AR AND HELD THAT THE AR FAILE D TO GIVE ANY DETAIL REASON/ REQUIREMENT TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT TO VARIOUS PARTIES ON A PARTICULAR DAY OR AFTER BANKING HOURS. AS PER AO, SUBSTANTIAL PART O F THE PAYMENT TO THE ABOVE PARTIES HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROU GH CHEQUES ON DIFFERENT DATES UP TO 2005 AS OBSERVED FROM THE DETAILS OF PA YMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AR. AFTER A GAP OF 3 TO 4 YEARS PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH NOT TO A PARTICULAR PARTY BUT TO VARIOUS PARTIES CLEARS THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PAYMENTS IN CASH TO ALL SUCH P ARTIES AND THE AR ALSO FAILED TO GIVE ANY DETAILS REGARDING REQUIREMENT OF MAKING SUCH PAYMENTS IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT NO DEDUCTION FO R THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 74,51,000/- IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, HENCE THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AN D ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR. 3.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT JAIP UR BENCH IN ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, A.Y. 2007-08 AND A.Y. 20 08-09 HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(3). THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BUSINESS ARE SAME. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE FARMERS ARE ALSO SAME. THEREFO RE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT GENUINENESS OF TR ANSACTIONS AND IDENTITY OF PARTIES ARE NOT IN DOUBT. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE T O THE FARMERS FOR ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 6 PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE PAYMENTS ARE SUPPORTED BY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE AGREEMENT TO SALE, SALE D EED AND REVENUE RECORDS OF THE LAND, 90B ORDERS OF JDA ETC. 3.4 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT TO FARMERS/AGRICULTURIST TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEES PERSONS VISIT VILLAGE TO VILLAGE TO SEAR CH THE APPROPRIATE LAND WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR SALE THAN THEY EXAMINE THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THE LAND AND NEGOTIATE THE DEAL WITH FARMERS. IN MOST OF THE CA SE THE UNDIVIDED LAND IS OWNED JOINTLY BY SEVERAL FAMILY MEMBERS, SO THE NEG OTIATION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN JOINT MEETING OF THE OWNERS OF THE LANDS AN D SUCH NEGOTIATIONS/MEETINGS ARE POSSIBLE ONLY AT THE RESI DENCE OF THE OWNERS AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FINAL DEAL OF THE LAN D IS POSSIBLE AT THE PLACE OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND AND PAYMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN VILLAGES WHICH ARE NOT SERVED BY THE BANKING FACILITIES OR AFTER T HE CLOSE OF BANKING HOURS. IN SOME CASE THE ASSESSEE GAVE POST DATES CHEQUES TO F ARMERS BUT THEY DID NOT LODGE THE CHEQUE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E AND THEY WERE NOT GIVEN POSSESSION OF LAND TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS PECULI AR SITUATION OF THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CASH IN FEW CASES. THIS MAY BE SEEN THAT THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE OF TH E RS. 236.90 CRORES OUT OF WHICH THE CASH PAYMENT IS ONLY FOR 74.51 LACS. 3.5 IN RESPECT OF DETAILS OF CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 7 4.51 LACS, IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE 5 PAYMENTS TOTALLING TO RS. 23,0 0,000/- WAS MADE ON 10.5.2009 WHICH WAS SUNDAY, 14 PAYMENTS TOTALLING T O RS.46,00,000/- WERE MADE ON 24.05.2009 WHICH WAS ALSO ON SUNDAY. ON SU NDAY, THE BANKS REMAINS CLOSED AND THEREFORE COVERED UNDER EXCEPTIONS MENTI ONED IN CLAUSE 6DD. THE ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 7 REMAINING 2 PAYMENTS OF RS. 5,00,000/- AND RS. 51,0 00/- WERE MADE ON 15.10.2009 AND 27.07.2009 AFTER BANKING HOURS. 3.6 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE RELAXATION PROVIDED UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40A(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40A(3) IS AS UNDER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS S UB-SECTION SHALL BE MADE WHERE ANY PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING (TWENTY THOUSAND) RUPEES IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY CROSSED CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BA NK OR BY CROSSED BANK DRAFT IN SUCH CASES AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF BANKING FACILITI ES AVAILABLE, CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE WORDS HAVING REGARD TO T HE NATURE AND EXTENT OF BANKING FACILITIES AVAILABLE, CONSIDERATIONS OF BUS INESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS WERE ADDED TO UNDER SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED HAVE SOME SPECIFIC MEANINGS. IF THE LE GISLATURE INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE EXEMPTION ONLY TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6DD THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO ADD THESE WORDS. THE INTENTION OF T HE LAW IS TO GIVE PROPER WEIGHTAGE TO AVAILABILITY OF BANKING FACILITIES, BU SINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. THE AO SHOULD HAVE CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 6DD AFTER CONSIDERING THE OTHER FACTORS ALSO LIKE AVAI LABILITY OF BANKING FACILITIES, AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. 3.7 FURTHER, LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: 1. PACL INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR (ITA NO. 944/JP/07) (ITAT JAIPUR) 2. KANTILAL PURSHOTTAM & CO. VS. CIT 155 ITR 519(R AJ.) 3. GIRDHARILAL VS. CIT (179 ITR 122) 4. CIT VS. P. PRAVIN AND CO. (274 ITR 534) 5. CIT VS. K.K.S.K. LEATHER PROCESSOR (292 ITR 669 ) 6. CIT VS. CHROME LEATHER CO. PVT. LTD. (235 ITR 7 08) ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 8 3.8 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS ARGUED THE MATTER AT LENGTH AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3.9 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 74.51 LACS IN RESPECT OF 21 SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. OUT OF 21 TRANSACTIONS, 19 PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO VARIOUS FARMERS ON SUNDAY AND THE REMAINING TWO PAYMENTS TOTALLING TO RS. 5,51,000/- WAS MADE AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE BANKING HOURS. UNDISPUTEDLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS AND IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SPELT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO FARM ERS FOR PURCHASE OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE PAYMENTS ARE DULY S UPPORTED BY THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTATION IN FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SALE, CONVEYA NCE DEED ETC. THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE EARLIER THROUGH CHEQUE CANNOT BE MADE THE SOLE BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF PAYMENTS BEING MADE IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH T HE LAND DEALS/NEGOTIATIONS ARE DONE WITH THE FARMERS AND THE NEED FOR CASH PAY MENT GIVEN THE LACK OF BANKING FACILITY, CHEQUES GIVEN EARLIER NOT BEING D EPOSITED THUS REQUIRING CASH PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF THESE 21 TRANSACTIONS. FURT HER, IT IS NOTED THAT THESE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS 74.51 LACS CONSTITUTE ONLY A SM ALL PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PAYMENTS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND TOTALLING TO RS. 236.90 CRORES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THUS CONSTITUTE AN EXC EPTION RATHER THAN A NORM. IN OUR VIEW, THE NEED FOR CASH PAYMENTS ON SUNDAYS/ AFTER BANKING HOURS AND TEST OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY FULFILLED IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40A(3) READ WITH RULE 6DD WHICH PROVIDES ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 9 RELAXATION FROM THE RIGOUR OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE CTION 40A(3) IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. 3.10 FURTHER IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS AND IN THE PAST UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, CASH PAYME NTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE FARMERS FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND AND THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.03.2014 HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN A. Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 3.11 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH (SUPRA), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS RI GHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 74,51,000 U/S 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/06 /2016. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 15/ 06/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD . JAIPUR . ITA NO. 416/JP/15 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS. SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P VT. LTD. JAIPUR 10 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT I, JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 416/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR