Rahul Bharatbhushan Jain, Ahmedabad V. Thye ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Ahmedabad

MA 50/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around the disallowance of cash payments made by the assessee, Rahul Bharatbhushan Jain, for printing charges, which amounted to Rs. 19.78 lakhs. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, which prohibits cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 to a single party. However, the CIT(A) reversed this decision, finding no evidence that any single payment exceeded the stipulated amount. The Department appealed to the ITAT, which restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the invoices and payments. The assessee then filed a Miscellaneous Application, arguing that the ITAT's observation was incorrect and that the Department had not pointed out any factual infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131408 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUJA PAREKH
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Rahul Bharatbhushan Jain , Shri Laxmi O ffset , C-101, B. G. Tower, Shahib aug Ro ad, Ahmedab ad PAN: ADUPJ592 2F (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Ah med abad (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri Praveen Sahu, A. R. Revenue by : M s. Puja Parekh , Sr. D. R. Date of hearing : 24-02 -2 023 Date of pronouncement : 04-05 -2 023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This Miscellaneous Application is arising out of ITA No. 280/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 83/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated on 22-04-2022. MA No. 50 /Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2011-12 M.A. No. 50/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. Rahul Bharatbhushan Jain vs. ITO 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee made payments of Rs. 19.78 lakhs in cash towards printing charges to various parties. During the course of assessment, the assessee submitted that no payment was made to any single party in cash above Rs. 20,000/- in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed payment holding that the payment was made in contravention of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that Assessing Officer has not pointed out to any payment made to any party exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The Department filed appeal against the aforesaid order before ITAT, Ahmedabad. The ITAT observed that from the papers filed by the assessee, it was unclear whether separate invoices have been raised by various parties and accordingly whether separate payments disbursed to them in cash were within the permissible limit of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, the ITAT restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction for verification on limited point whether separate invoices were raised by various parties and separate payments have been made by the assessee not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- against such invoices. The assessee filed Miscellaneous Application against the aforesaid order and submitted that the ITAT erred in observing that from the records it is not clear whether payments exceeding 20,000/- were made to each of the parties. Before us, the counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee had submitted paper book giving party-wise details of payments only with a view to assist the Hon’ble ITAT and it was not under an obligation to do so, since it was the Department’s appeal. Further, the counsel for the assessee also pointed out that the Departmental Representative has not pointed out to any factual M.A. No. 50/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. Rahul Bharatbhushan Jain vs. ITO 3 infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), since it was the Department who had filed appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) and the onus was on the Department to point out the factual/legal infirmities in the order of ld. CIT(A). We are hereby inclined to agree with the proposition of the ld. counsel for the assessee that since it was the Department’s appeal, it was Department’s obligation to point out the specific factual inaccuracies in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is being recalled and re-fixed for hearing and the Department is at liberty to file necessary documents to counter the findings of ld. CIT(A). 3. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04-05-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 04/05/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद