2009 (10) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollowing question of law for opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in deleting an addition of Rs. 23,236 under section 40A (3) even though the assessee made several payments to the same person on the same day which aggregate exceeded Rs. 2,500 and did not take any plea of any hardship or exceptional circumstan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e list given at page 3 and we are of the opinion that the decision of the hon' ble Orissa High Court squarely covers up the case of the assessee. As no single payment was more than Rs. 2,500, we hold that the disallowance under section 40A (3) of the said amount was not justified. We, therefore, delete the said addition." 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. SriA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2,500, the rigour of section 40A(3) of the Act will not apply. The said view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Triveniprasad Pannalal [1997] 228 ITR 680. Identical view has been taken in CIT v. Kothari Sanitation and Tiles P. Ltd. [2006] 282 ITR 117 (Mad). It was further pointed out that similar view was taken by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Aloo Supply Co. [1980] 121 IT....