TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntrary to Law and Arbitrary and inconsistent with respect to the law and facts. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has not any reservation against any of the arguments advanced. The Appellant did not have fair and reasonable opportunity. 3. The CIT Appeals have refused to recognize the meaning of 'Agent' where the supervision is been deemed to act as an agent due to circumstance which is supported by a case law in favor of the assessee. 4. The order was passed nearly 2 months of the hearing indicating non application of mind to the arguments presented which has not being adverted in the order." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of civil contractors/builde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,035/- has been disallowed u/s.40A(3) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it has purchased materials in cash through agents which is covered under Rule 6DD clause (k), as per which any payment made by a person to his agent, who is required to make payment in cash for goods and services on behalf of such person does not come under the purview of section 40A(3) of the I.T Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts and also taken note of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, observed that although the assessee claims to have made payment to his agent, who is required to make payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with no option, we proceed to dispose off appeal of the assessee ex-parte on the basis of materials available on record. As per facts borne out from records, the assessee has made cash payments in excess of prescribed limit covered u/s.40A(3) of the Act, for purchase and services. In fact, the assessee admitted fact that it has made cash payments in excess of prescribed limit, however, argued that said payment is made to his agent, who is required to make payments in cash for goods or services on behalf of the assessee. We find that the learned CIT(A) has recorded categorical finding that although, the assessee claims to have made payment to its agent, but on perusal of details filed by the assessee, so called agents are employees of the as....