2025 (4) TMI 1127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Since the facts and issued involved in both the appeals are identical and both the appeals are arising out of the same order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. ITA No.378/Kol/2024 - The only issue raised by the assessee is against the part-confirmation of addition by the ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 9,33,440/- being 2% of the expenditure incurred in cash purely on estimated basis. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 13.02.2018 which was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground of huge cash withdrawals. Accordingly, the Assessing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e delivery of the jute to the clients. The Appellant further submitted that his turnover for the FY 2016-17 only included the commission income and did not include the sales effected on behalf of the principals which is in compliance with the CBDT Circular: No.452 [F.No.201/3/85- IT (A-II)), dated 17-3-1986). [Copy of the CBDT Circular No 452 was enclosed vide Annexure-2: No. Of Pages-02). The assessee had received the money from the purchaser of jute Le. "Jute Mill Agents or Pucca Arahtiya' through the banking channel for arranging for the delivery of the jute to them as the commission agent. It was submitted that the amount received by the Appellant from the purchaser of the jute during the FY 2016-17 was th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....their village name they come from and thus, it was difficult to track them. The Appellant submitted that the several payments made by the Appellant to the various producer of the jute during the FY 2016-17 relevant to the AY 2017-18, does not exceeds the limits as prescribed u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. payment made to the single party on the single day exceeds the limit of Rs. 10,000/-, being the payment made otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or through the use of Electronic clearing system. The above shows that the assessee was able to explain the source of amount withdrawn but failed to substantiate the expenditure incurred (payment made to Fadiyaars or producers of jute). ....