Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Cellbiz Services (ITAT Kolkata)
CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that the cash book, purchase register and all individual invoices where cash transaction had taken place have been thoroughly checked and it is found that not a single such transaction actually exceeded the threshold limit of Rs.20,000/-. In view of the aforesaid factual finding given by the CIT(A) after thoroughly checking the record and account of the assessee that not a single transaction actually exceeded the threshold limit of Rs.20,000/- and that there is no violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
The present appeal has been preferred by the Department against the order dated 24.04.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the Remand Report submitted by the A.O. where it has been clearly recorded that out of the total 31 parties of cash purchase the assessee failed to provide the address of 13 parties and could produce ledger Copy of only 21 parties but no supporting documents by way of bills/vouchers over 14 hearings and without appreciating these facts on record, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of cash purchases by accepting fresh evidence in contravention to Rule 46A of the 1.T. Rules, 1962.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
