TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditure u/s 69C of the Act for purchases made by the assessee in cash, without appreciating the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. 2. That the order of CIT(Appeals) being erroneous in law and facts deserves to be set aside/cancelled and the order of the AO to be restored. 3. That the above grounds are without prejudice to each other and appellant craves leave to add or amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so many arise. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having business income from proprietary concern-M/S Agarwal Food Grains and Share of net profit from partnership firms. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31-10-2017 by declaring total income of Rs. 21,49,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and there after assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16-12-2019 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer by disallowing of claim of exempt LTC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad filed Form 6R in support of purchases made by him in APMC- Mandi. The assessee proved that the Mandi Shulk and Vikash Shulk on the purchase was paid by the assessee. He further submitted that addition was rightly deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in the order as under: 4.3. Ground No. 4& 5 4.3.1 Vide ground no. 4, the appellant contends that addition of Rs. 12,12,46,867/- u/s 69C made by the AO is in complete contrast with direction of Ld. PCIT set out by him in order u/s 263 of the Act which was on the issue of applicability of Rule 6DD of the Rules and section 40A(3) of the Act. The appellant contends that section 69C is not applicable in his case as the source of the expenditure (Cash Purchase) of Rs. 12,12,46,867/- is explained by the appellant and the cash purchases are reflected in regular audited books of accounts. 4.3.2. Vide ground no. 5, the appellant contends that exception provided in Rule 6DD of the Rules is applicable in his case in respect of cash purchases and section 40A(3) is not attracted. It is a fact on record that Ld. PCIT directed the AO to- * Examine the claim of applicability of Rule 6DD of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. AO has misconstrued the directions and has gone ahead in making enquiries on the entire amount of unsecured loans of Rs. 32,99,000/- reported by the assessee in his tax audit report and audited financial statement. He thus, submitted that the issue before the AO in the impugned assessment was limited in scope, for which all the relevant documentary evidence were on record. However, to further corroborate the same, assessee has furnished additional evidence by resorting to Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules." In this case, Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT held as per follows: "7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. We are in agreement with the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the issue is related to an amount of Rs. 2,67,000/- of unsecured loan taken and given in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- during the year which ought to have been treated in accordance with the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act as directed Ld. PCIT while setting aside the original assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. From the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we note that they have been passed ex parte or in absence of adequate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A). The appeal of the Revenue liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly. Cross Objection No. 96/Del/2025 9. In the cross objection has filed on the following grounds: (i) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(NFAC) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,16,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 7,46,012/- made in the assessment order u/s 69A of the cash deposited during the year. The addition sustained of Rs. 1,16,000/- needs to be deleted, it is prayed. (ii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(NFAC) has erred in upholding the Revisionary proceedings u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax NOIDA, as the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 16- 12-2019 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue as having been framed after substantial inquiry on the cash purchases and granting exemption u/s 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(e ). It is therefore prayed that the Revisionary order u/s 263 needs to be quashed and as a result the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/263 dated 27-03-2023 be also quashed. (iii) That the assessee begs permission to amend alter modify change or taken additional grounds. 10. The Ld. AR of the assess....