TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18-19. For A.Y. 2016-17 ITA No. 3111/KOL/2025 2. Ground no.1 to 8 are not pressed. 3. The first issue raised in ground no.9 to 11 is against the part confirmation of addition to the extent of Rs.12,79,989/- as against the total addition of Rs.17,76,307/- made by the ld. AO u/s 69C of the Act in respect of expenditure. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 05.10.2016, declaring total income at Rs.29,61,590/-. A survey u/s 133A (1) of the Act was conducted on the office and residential premises of the assessee and the records were impounded. A survey team noted that the assessee has made a payment of more than Rs.20,000/- in violation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and AO also f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s actually made by the assessee during the year. The appellant has stated that the break up given in the order did not match with the cash payments made by the assessee during the year. In order to substantiate this ground, the appellant through his submission made on 22.09.2025, has stated that the figures of the alleged cash payments made in excess of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act which were duly recorded in the regular books of accounts, however the AO made addition u/s 69C of the Act, which is not applicable under such facts. All the entries in the impounded documents were recorded in the regular books of accounts. Further, he states that the said impugned pages referred to in the SCN on the basis of which addition was made u/s 69C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts were received through cheque. The relevant impounded documents submitted by the assessee have been examined and it is found that against certain entries; cheque numbers are mentioned and the amounts are tallying with the ledger account furnished by the assessee during appellate proceeding. Hence, the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,97,318/-, out of Rs. 17,76,307/- u/s 69C of the Act is allowed to be deleted, subject to the verification of the A.O. from the records available with him and the counterparty to the impugned transactions. It is matter of fact that the appellant failed to explain the nature and source of incurring the expenses in cash of the remaining amount, both during the assessment proceeding as well as the appellate procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and therefore, invocation of section 69C of the Act is wrong. It was also claimed by the assessee that in the show cause notice, the addition made u/s 69C of the Act referred to the payments received by the assessee from the debtors and thereto mostly by cheque and does not relate to the payments made by the assessee. The ld. AR therefore, referred to page no. 40 of the seized documents KE-2 and try to explain that the amount mentioned as payments by referring to these payments received by the assessee against the sale made to party M/s Maamanasa Hardware. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the cash amounts referred by the ld. AO are not expenses incurred by him and hence, section 69C of the Act is not applicable. The ld. CIT (A) after taking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.2015 Subham Kedia (salary 26,300 4 month salary paid in cash although debited in the Books every moth Rs.13,150/- 2. 05.11.2015 Audit fee 25,000 4 Month salary paid in cash although debited in the books every moth Rs.12,225/- 3. 19.01.2016 Sales promotion 25,000 Purchase of gold coin 4. 27.02.2016 Sales promotion 42,000 Purchase of gold Coin 4.2. The ld. AO accordingly, added the same to the income of the assessee. 4.3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the said addition. 4.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the payments were made to Subham Kedia on 05.06.2015, which is two-month salar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us in ground no. 9 to 11 of ITA No. 3111/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to these grounds of assessee in ITA No.3112/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. Hence, ground nos. 9 to 11 are allowed. 12. The Second issue raised in ground no. 12 are similar to one as decided by us in ground no. 12 of ITA No. 3111/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this ground of assessee in ITA No.3112/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. Hence, ground no. 12 is allowed. 13. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3112/KOL/2025 is allowed. For A.Y. 2018-19 ITA No. 3113/KOL/2025 14. Ground nos. 1 to 3 are not pressed. 15. The first issue raised in ground nos. 4 &5 ar....