ITAT affirms CIT(A) decisions on three issues, dismissing Revenue and assessee appeals. Assessee's cross objection also dismissed.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all three issues, dismissing both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals. The cross objection of the assessee was also dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of all appeals and objections.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure.
2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained credit.
3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payment.

Issue 1: Deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure:
The case involved cross-appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) VI, Hyderabad. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 26,10,000 as unexplained expenditure by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, engaged in Beedi Leaves contract business, had withdrawn this amount from his bank account, which was not recorded in the books of account. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the funds were withdrawn for personal purposes and not reflected in the business books. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the amount withdrawn was from the assessee's bank account, and the source of deposits was not disputed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition on account of unexplained credit:
The second issue involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 9,50,000 as unexplained credit. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in a transaction where the assessee received and repaid the amount involving a third party. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the repayment was made as per instructions and supported by a confirmation letter. The ITAT agreed, stating that the explanation was supported by evidence and no unexplained credit existed. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payment:
The final issue concerned a disallowance of Rs. 4,80,550 under Section 40A(3) for a cash payment against a purchase. The assessee claimed the payment was made by demand draft, but no evidence was provided. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, and the ITAT upheld this decision, as no evidence was presented to support the claim. The contention that the purchase was of a forest produce exempt under Rule 6DD(e)(i) was also rejected due to lack of evidence. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all three issues, dismissing both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals. The cross objection of the assessee was also dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of all appeals and objections.

---