Tribunal partially allows appeal against disallowed expenses, upholding some disallowances.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' decision to disallow Rs. 24,70,000, deleting this addition. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 3,91,410 for the purchase of a vacant site, as uncontested by the Assessee. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Assessee succeeding in part.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Affirmation of partly disallowance of Rs. 28,61,410/- under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Affirmation of partly disallowance of Rs. 28,61,410/- under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The Assessee, engaged in the business of real estate, purchased agricultural lands on a cash basis, developed them into plots, converted them into stock-in-trade, and sold them, admitting profit on the sale. The Assessee argued that the provisions of section 40A(3) were not applicable. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 1,35,87,225/- under section 40A(3) of the Act.

Upon appeal, the Assessee provided additional evidence, including confirmation letters from sellers, asserting that the sellers insisted on cash payments due to the absence of bank accounts. The AO, in the remand report, confirmed the identity of the sellers and acknowledged the business expediency of cash payments, stating it was a general practice among agriculturists who lack literacy and distrust cheques.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] relied on the remand report and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,08,09,000/- for five transactions, as the sellers resided in a village without banking facilities, thus falling under the exception in Rule 6DD(g) of the Income Tax Rules. However, the CIT(A) sustained the disallowance of Rs. 24,70,000/- for the remaining transactions and Rs. 3,91,410/- for the purchase of a vacant site, as these payments did not meet any exceptions under Rule 6DD.

The Tribunal reviewed the remand report and found no contrary evidence against the AO’s admission regarding business expediency and the necessity of cash payments. The Tribunal cited a similar case (ITO Vs. Smt. Jalumuri Rama Lakshmi) where disallowance under section 40A(3) was not warranted when the transaction was genuine, and the identity of the payer and payee was not in doubt.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of Rs. 24,70,000/-, deleting this addition, but upheld the disallowance of Rs. 3,91,410/- for the purchase of a vacant site, as the Assessee did not contest this amount. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed.

---