Asha Mahila Bahat Gut, Aurangabad V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(8), Aurangabad

ITA 686/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0821 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.686/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asha Mahila Bahat Gut, MIDC Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431001 PAN : AAALA1655M Vs. ITO, Ward-1(8), Aurangabad. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 12.10.2021 passed in case no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036341041(1) involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal, it emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 40A(3) disallowance of Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2022 ITA No.686/PUN/2021 2 Rs.3,96,810/- on the ground that it failed to justify the cash payment made for purchasing wheat from various farmers. 3. Mr. Desai vehemently supported the impugned disallowance. He invited my attention to the learned lower authorities’ detailed discussion(s) that the assessee had failed in proving the compelling circumstances under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. I find no merit in the Revenue stand as there is no indication that the impugned payments had been made “to a person in a day” as per the clinching statutory expression employed in section 40A(3) of the Act. I therefore adopt stricter interpretation in light of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC)(FB) to delete the impugned disallowance for this precise reason alone as the learned lower authorities have not referred to any specific violation in their respective orders. The assessee succeeds in its sole substantive grievance therefore. 4. This assessees’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 30 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 th May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) ITA No.686/PUN/2021 3 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.