TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firming the action of ld. AO in disallowing the claim of expenditure of Rs. 53,69,758/- by applying section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please may be granted by deleting the entire addition Rs. 53,69,758/- under section 40A (3) imposed under section 40A(3). 2. That the Ld CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition by ignoring the fact that the genuineness of the transaction has been established as evidenced by the registered sale deeds and lastly, the test of business expediency has been met. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 53,69,75....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s restored to the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority in pursuance to the direction of Ld.CIT, passed assessment order dated 08.12.2017 thereby, he made addition of INR 53,69,758/- and assessed the income of the assessee at INR 84,93,848/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below did not appreciate the facts in right perspective. The assessee made payments to the land owners. He further submitted that even ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee has not placed any contrary material in support of his contention that the owners of land had insisted for cash payments. In the absence of such material, the submission of the assessee is merely bald assertion. The case laws as relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has neither proved business expediency nor any compelling circumstances. Moreover, the assessee has not placed any material suggesting that on the date of payment, there was banking holiday and/or no banking facility was available where the cash payment was made by the assessee. Thus,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed^46, the payment so made shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as income of the subsequent year if the payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, exceeds ten thousand rupees: Provided that no disallowance shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under subsection (3) and this sub-section where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for any expenditure and subsequently during any previous year the assessee makes any payment in respect thereof in a sum exceeding [twenty] thousand rupees otherwise than by [an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft], the allowance originally made shall be deemed to have been wrongly made and the Assessing Officer may recompute the total income of the assessee for the previous year in which such liability was incurred and make the necessary amendment, and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, the period of four years specified in sub-section (7) of that section being reckoned from the end of the assessment year next following the previous year in which the payment was so made: ....