TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2013-14. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished written explanation of the queries raised, produced books of accounts which were examined by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO"). The assessee filed statutory audit report in Form No. 3CD along with balance sheet and other financial statements. The assessee disclosed sales at Rs. 1,48,23,24,579/- and gross profit of Rs. 69,42,835/- giving GP rate of 0.47%. Net profit was reported at Rs. 12,98,577/- @ 0.09%. On being asked, assessee produced complete books of accounts which were verified by the Ld. AO who completed the assessment on total income of Rs. 13,98,577/- on 17.12.2015 including therein adhoc addition of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue and not a patent mistake warranting action under section 154 of the Act. 4.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the Ld. AO had not doubted the existence of the parties to whom the payments had been made and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the disallowance under section 40A(3) was not only outside the purview of that section but was also made in complete violation of the principle of natural justice. In its written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) reliance was placed on numerous decisions. 4.2 It was emphasised that it was a case of changing the mood of the Ld. AO on the same set of facts and provisions of law which is not warranted under section 154 of the Act. Ld. AO had allowed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Act with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The expression 'apparent' has been interpreted as something which appears to be ex facie and is incapable of arguments or debate in the following judgments:- (i) T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Tata Engg. And Locomotive Co. Ltd. 108 ITR 869 (Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 (SC). It is well settled that mistake may be of fact or of law. The only condition precedent is that the mistake must be apparent from the record of the assessee and that it must be glaring, obvious or self evident mistake as held by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 197 ITR 223 (Del). It has been held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee objecting to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 154 of the Act. 9. We now proceed to deal with the grounds of the assessee relating to challenge of the impugned disallowance under section 40A(3) on merits. Section 40A(3) and (3A) as substituted w.e.f. 1.4.2009 read as under:- "(3). Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an bank account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. (3A) xxxx Provided that no disallowance shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business o....