Case Law Details
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Ludhiana
Versus
Smt. Shelly Passi
IT Appeal No. 179 of 2012 (O&M)
OCTOBER 6, 2012
ORDER
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 11.5.2012, Annexure 3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (for brevity, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1151/CHANDI/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,19,000/- made by AO and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 40A(3) of the Income tax Act ignoring the fact that books of accounts were deliberately fabricated to show payments within the permissible limits and the issue of principal agent was never represented before AO or CIT(A)?
(ii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT has ignored the contents of affidavit filed by assessee and reproduced by AO on page 7-8 of assessment order, where the assessee has not taken any stand in regard to principal and agent relationship and thus did not follow the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of SAS Education Society 319 ITR 65 (Punjab and Haryana)?
(iii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT has ignored the finding given on page 3 of the CIT(A) order that the assessee had complete knowledge of law that provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act are applicable and the assessee deliberately fabricated books of account to show payment less than Rs. 20,000/-?”
2. Briefly the facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Return of income in this case was e-filed on 28.9.2008 declaring income of Rs. 1,54,390/- which was subsequently processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 21.3.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made cash payments amounting to Rs. 60,19,000/- for purchase of goods from Reliance Communication Infrastructure Limited (RCIL) in the year under assessment in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act read with Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for brevity, “the Rules”). As the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchase of goods from RCIL as such, the whole amount of Rs. 60,19,000/- was disallowed and assessed to tax vide order dated 22.11.2010, Annexure I. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- received by the assessee as gift and added to income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 1,24,300/- on account of capital introduced by the assessee and Rs. 27,121/- on account of miscellaneous expenses. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 30.9.2011, Annexure 2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 11.5.2012, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the revenue.
3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs. 60,19,000/- made by the Assessing officer was wrongly deleted by the Tribunal. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (Punj. & Har.), it was submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously accepted the plea of the assessee whereas in view of the express provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, any amount paid in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- was inadmissible.
4. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
5. The Tribunal while accepting the plea of the assessee had categorically held that the money amounting to Rs. 60,19,000/- was directly deposited in the bank account of RCIL. Reference was also made to the paper book which had been filed before the Tribunal. Another factor which was considered by the Tribunal was that the assessee was only an agent of RCIL and therefore question of any dis allowance in the hands of the assessee was not attracted. The aforesaid findings have not been shown to be perverse or erroneous in any manner.
6. The judgment on which reliance has been placed was on individual fact situation involved therein. In that case, this Court came to the conclusion that the Tribunal before providing further opportunity, was required to record a finding that there was denial of opportunity to the concerned party. That is not the situation here. Thus, the judgment is of no assistance to the appellant.
7. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
