KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA, Nagpur V. I.T.O. Ward 3(4), Nagpur

ITA 9/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9665 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Revised return
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 9/NAG./2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200910 ) SHRI KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA SHOP NO.31, KISAN ALU CO. KALAMNA MARKET, KALMANA NAGPUR 440 008 PAN ABHPA7108H APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD3(4), NAGPUR .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANOJ MORYANI REVENUE BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE DATE OF HEARING 22.06.2017 DATE OF ORDER 27.06 .2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15 TH MARCH 2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)II, NAGPUR, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 200910. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED BE LOW: 1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) IS ILLEGAL, INVALI D AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NA GPUR ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.1,03,50,968 BY A SSESSING OFFICER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3), THEREFORE ORDER PASSED IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 2 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK 3. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NA GPUR ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS. 1,53,976/- DISA LLOWING THE COMMISSION INCOME BY ASSESSING, THEREFORE ORDER PAS SED IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 4. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NA GPUR ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.56,81,006/- BY A SSESSING OFFICER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I) , THEREFORE ORDER PASSED IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NAGP UR ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED REPLY AND SUBMISSION O F ASSESSEE THEREFORE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24 TH AUGUST 2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,35,970. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 25 TH AUGUST 2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF ` 2,23,240 ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED ON 29 TH MARCH 2011. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DERIVED BUSINESS INCOME BY WAY OF TRADING AND COMMISSION AGENT UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE M/S. KISAN ALU COMPANY, KALAMNA NAGPUR . BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE DULY BEEN AUDITED AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CB / 3CD WAS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809 AND 200910. THE CASE W AS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) A ND 142(1) WERE ISSUED WHICH WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT TO 11 PARTIES TOTALING TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,03,50,968 WITHOUT 3 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK COMPLYING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43A(3). THER EFORE, THE SAID PAYMENT WAS DECLARED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN TURNOVER AND REGARDING NONDEDU CTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT MADE TO THE TRANSPORTER. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASSESSED THE COMMISSION @ 4% TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,53,976 AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PAID THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO THE TUNE OF ` 56,81,006 AGAINST THE PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF ` 2,30,14,686, WITHOUT COMPLYING TO THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40(A)(IA). THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF ` 56,81,006 WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT ` 1,64,09,190. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WH O DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO.1 3. THIS ISSUE BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, NO S EPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. ISSUE NO.2 4. UNDER THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CO NFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,03,50,968 IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND COMMISSION AGENT UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. KISAN ALU 4 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK COMPANY, KALAMNA NAGPUR . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E ON BEHALF OF THE BUYER FROM THE FARMERS AND WAS RECEIVING ONLY COMMI SSION. HE WAS COLLECTING THE AMOUNT FROM THE PURCHASER AND WAS PA YING TO THE FARMERS. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40A(3) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE LAW SETTLED IN THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE: I) SRI RENUKESWARA RICE MILLS V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, (2005) TTJ 0912 (BANGALORE); II) AVTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH ETC. V/S INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, [1991] 191 ITR0667 (SC); III) RAMPADA PANDA V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, (2016) 156 IT D 0784 (KOLKATA); IV) ANURAG RADHESHAM ATTAN -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( 2016) 158 ITD 0867 (PUNE); AND V) INCOME TAX OFFICER -VS.- RAM PRAKASH, (2015) 67 SOT 0126 (AGRA). 5. IT IS ALSO ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESS EE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT BY USING ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 6DD OF THE I.T. RULES, WERE APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, NO TAX OF ANY KIND WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED. NO DOUBT, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN QUESTION. IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS 5 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTICED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T IN DISPUTE. HE WAS WORKING AS COMMISSION AGENT AND WAS PURCHASING THE AGRICULTURAL CROP FROM THE FARMERS ON BEHALF OF THE PURCHASER. THE MA TTER IN CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RENUKESWARA RICE MILLS V/S ITO, [2005] 93 ITD 263 (BANG.), WHEREIN, T HE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE, INT ERPRETING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) IN THE CASE OF ATTAR SI NGH GURMUKH SINGH V. ITO 191 ITR 667 AT PAGE 672 AND 673 HELD T HUS 'SECTION 40A(3) MUST NOT BE READ IN ISOLATION OR TO THE EXCL USION OF RULE 6DD. THE SECTION MUST BE READ ALONG WITH THE RULE. IF READ TOGETHER IT WILL BE DEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT INTENDE D TO RESTRICT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE ASSESSEE IN HIS TRADING ACTIVITIES. SECTION 40A(3) ONLY EMPOWERS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED AS EXPEND ITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT IS NOT MADE BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR C ROSSED BANK DRAFT. THE PAYMENT BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR CROSSED BAN K DRAFT IS INSISTED ON TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO AS CERTAIN WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS GENUINE OR WHETHER IT WAS OUT OF TH E INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE TERMS OF SECTION 40A(3) AR E NOT ABSOLUTE. CONSIDERATIONS OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER REL EVANT FACTORS ARE NOT EXCLUDED. GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION S ARE NOT TAKEN OUT OF THE SWEEP OF THE SECTION. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PAYMENT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 40A(3) WAS NOT PRACTICABLE OR WOULD HAVE CAUSED GEN UINE DIFFICULTY TO THE PAYEE. IT IS ALSO OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ID ENTIFY THE PERSON WHO RECEIVED THE CASH PAYMENT. RULE 6DD PROVIDES TH AT AN ASSESSEE CAN BE EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF PA YMENT BY A CROSSED CHEQUE OR CROSSED BANK DRAFT IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES SPECIFIED UNDER THE RULE. IT WILL BE DEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND RULE 6DD THAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO REGULATE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND TO PREVENT THE USE OF UN- ACCOUNTED MONEY OR REDUCE THE CHANCES TO USE BLACK MONEY FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. (SEE MUDIAM OIL COMPANY V. ITO [1973] 92 ITR 519 (AP). IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY A CROSSED CHEQUE DR AWN ON A BANK OR CROSSED BANK DRAFT, THEN IT WILL BE EASIER TO AS CERTAIN, WHEN 6 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED, WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS GENUI NE AND WHETHER IT WAS OUT OF THE INCOME FROM DISCLOSED SOU RCES. IN INTERPRETING A TAXING STATUTE, THE COURT CANNOT BE OBLIVIOUS OF THE PROLIFERATION OF BLACK MONEY WHICH IS UNDER CIRCULA TION IN OUR COUNTRY. ANY RESTRAINT INTENDED TO CURB THE CHANCES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO USE OR CREATE BLACK MONEY SHOULD N OT BE REGARDED AS CURTAILING THE FREEDOM OF TRADE OR BUSINESS.' (E MPHASIS SUPPLIED) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT THE INTENTION TO MAKE PAYMENT BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR CROSSED DD IS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ASCERTAIN THAT THE PAYMENT I S GENUINE AND NOT OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT SECTION 40A(3) IS INTENDED TO REGULATE BUSINESS TRANSACTION S AND TO PREVENT THE USE OF UN-ACCOUNTED MONIES OR TO REDUCE THE CHA NCES OF USE OF BLOCK MONEY FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF RICE, PAID T HE AMOUNT DIRECTLY TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE. THE EFFE CT OF ISSUE OF CROSSED CHEQUE/DD IS THAT THE PAYEE NAMED THEREIN R ECEIVES THE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE PURPOSE IS DU AL. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IT IS TO SEE THAT THE PAYEE AND PAYE E ALONE RECEIVES THE PAYMENT AND TO ENSURE THAT THE PAYMENT IS ROUTE D THROUGH BANK CHANNEL SO AS TO TRACE THE ORIGIN AND CONCLUSI ON OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS SEEN THAT INSTEAD OF ISSUING CHEQUE/DD THE ASSESSEE PREPARED A CHALLAN AND ALONG WITH THE CASH THE CHALLAN WAS PRESENTED TO THE BANK OF THE P AYEE FOR THE CREDIT OF THE SAME IN THE ACCOUNT OF PAYEE. IN THE RESULT IT IS ENSURED THAT THE PAYEE AND PAYEE ALONE RECEIVES THE PAYMENT AND THE ORIGIN AND CONCLUSION OF TRANSACTION IS TRACEAB LE. THUS PAYMENT OF SUM DIRECTLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF PAYEE FULFIL S THE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 40A( 3). THIS IS NOT A DIRECT PAYMENT TO THE PAYEE BUT ONLY TO THE CREDIT OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT THE PAYEE ACTUALLY RECEIVING THE CA SH. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT IN VIOLAT ION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALL ED FOR. 7. IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAYMENT IS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE AGENT OPERATING AT THE MARKET YARD. AS PER THE REGULATION OF TRADE IN AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE, MARKET YARDS ARE SET UP AND THE STATE RMC ACT ALSO REGULATES SUCH BUSINESS. THUS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE, THE TRANSACTION CAN BE ONLY THROUGH DEALERS AND AGENTS LICENSED TO OPERATE IN THE MARKET YARD. THUS, THE PERSON OPERAT ING THERE, IS NOT ONLY THE AGENT OF THE CULTIVATOR OR GROWER BUT ALSO OF THE PERSONS PURCHASING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. CLAUSE (F) OF RULE 6DD PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE FOR THE PUR CHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE CULTIVATOR, SECTION 40A (3) WILL NOT APPLY. SIMILARLY, CLAUSE (1) OF RULE 6 DD PROVIDES THAT WH ERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY ANY PERSON TO HIS AGENT WHO IS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT IN CASH FOR GOODS, SECTION 40A(3) WILL NOT APPLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE SUM TO HIS AGENT WHO IS THE P AYEE IN THE 7 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK PRESENT CASE, AND WHO IN HIS TURN IS REQUIRED TO MA KE PAYMENT TO THE CULTIVATOR, INDIRECTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID F OR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE CULTIVATOR THROUGH THE AGENT. THUS, A COMBINED READING OF CLAUSES (F) AND (1) OF RULE 6DD WILL TAKE AWAY THE TRANSACTION FROM THE CLUTCHES OF SECTION 40A(3) . FROM THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE APART FROM PAYING PRICE OF THE PR ODUCTS ALSO PAYS COMMISSION TO THE PAYEE. THUS, THE PAYEE HAS BECOME THE AGENT OF ASSESSEE ALSO. SUCH AGENT IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE CU LTIVATOR IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3 ). WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,04,000/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO KP. 6. THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH, HAS ALSO IDENTICAL ISSUE I N APPEAL IN ITA NO.829 AND 863/PN./2012 DATED 11 TH MARCH 2016, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE FROM FARMER THROUGH THEM AND MAKE DIRECT PAYMENT TO THE FARMERS THEN THERE SHALL BE NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) . THE HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S SMT. SHELLY PASSI, 350 ITR 22 7 (P&H), HAS HELD THAT DIRECT DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE RECI PIENT BY THE PAYER ASSESSEE NOT VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) R/W RULE 6DD OF THE RULES. IN VIEW OF THE SAID LAW, IT IS QUITE CLEAR T HAT THE PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE NOWHERE COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 40A(3) R/W RULE 6DD(C)( V). THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FAC TS AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET A SIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND A ND DELETE THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,03,50,968. 8 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK ISSUE NO.3 7. UNDER THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DI SALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF ` 1,53,976. THE DIFFERENCE OF TURNOVER WAS FOUND TO THE TUNE OF ` 38,49,405. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO SHOW CA USE AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED @ 4%. THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS MINIMAL IN SUCH A HIGH TURNOVER AND IT IS NOT AT ALL PROPER TO ARRIVE AT A TURNOVER ON THE BASIS OF A RE VERSE CALCULATION FROM THE FIGURE OF COMMISSION RECEIVED. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CONDUCTED ENQUIRY FROM APMC AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CO NFRONTED. NOTHING WAS EXPLAINED. THE SAME SITUATION WAS BEFOR E THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS BEFORE US. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CLEAR THE AMBIGUITY, THEREFORE, THE 4% ADDITION ON THE DIFFERENTIAL TURNOVER TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,53,976 WAS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAROUR OF THE REVENUE. ISSUE NO.4 8. THIS ISSUE IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 56,81,006 UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA). THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS IS A PART OF ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE OWNER OF THE GOODS W HILE PASSING ON THE BUYER AT DELIVERY POINT AND THE TRANSPORTER OF GOOD S WAS A STEP IN THE 9 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK EXECUTION OF SALE OF GOODS AND IN FACT THERE WAS NO CONTRACT FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS, HENCE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 C WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS AL SO PLACED RELIANCE FROM THE LAW SETTLED IN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT O F GUJARAT IN CIT V/S KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OP. LTD., (2012) 349 ITR 68 (GUJ .). THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY PLACED REL IANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN QUE STION. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAI NED. THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON BEHALF O F THE PURCHASER AND WAS TRANSPORTING THE PRODUCE TO THE PURCHASER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE FOR TRANSPORTATION NOR CL AIMED IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO QUESTION TO DEDUCT THE TDS. IN FACT, THE TRANSACTIO N WAS NOT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT, IN THE SAID CIRCUMS TANCES, THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF ` 56,81,006 IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS. ACCORDIN GLY, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE ADDITION IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELET ED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.06.2017 SD/ - P.K. BANSAL VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - AMARJIT SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 27.06.2017 10 SHRI KARIM KAMRUDDIN MALIK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, NAGPUR