Deuputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1(2) Raipurchhattisgarh,, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh,, Chhattisgarh v. Rcp Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V I P Street, Khamardih, Shankarnagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 154 of 2017 Deuputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1(2) RaipurChhattisgarh,, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh,, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus RCP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V I P Street, Khamardih, ShankarNagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For AppellantFor Respondent Ms Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. None Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board by Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra J. 08/02/2018 1. Heard. 2. This appeal by revenue would assail the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (henceforth, theTribunal) on 11.05.2017, dismissing the appeal preferredby the revenue wherein challenge was made to the orderTribunal) on 11.05.2017, dismissing the appeal preferredby the revenue wherein challenge was made to the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), Raipur dated 30.04.2014,which allowed the assessee's appeal against the orderpassed by the AO, imposing tax liability to the tune ofRs.3,41,84,000/- applying Section 40A(3) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (henceforth, the Act). 3. Section 40A(3) of the Act provides that any expenditure inrespect of which a payment or aggregate of paymentsmade to a person in a day, otherwise than by an accountpayee cheque drawn on a bank or an account payee bankdraft exceeds Rs.20,000/-, no deduction shall be allowedin respect of such expenditure.respect of which a payment or aggregate of paymentsmade to a person in a day, otherwise than by an accountpayee cheque drawn on a bank or an account payee bankdraft exceeds Rs.20,000/-, no deduction shall be allowedin respect of such expenditure. 4. In the case at hand, it is admitted that payment to the tuneof Rs. 3,41,84,000/- was made by the assessee in cash todifferent persons towards payment of purchase price forlands as the assessee is engaged in the business of saleand purchase of lands. The Assessing Officer recorded hissatisfaction that the explanation offered by the assesseeas to why payments were made in cash, does not satisfythe requirement of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules,1962.of Rs. 3,41,84,000/- was made by the assessee in cash todifferent persons towards payment of purchase price forlands as the assessee is engaged in the business of saleand purchase of lands. The Assessing Officer recorded hissatisfaction that the explanation offered by the assesseeas to why payments were made in cash, does not satisfythe requirement of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules,1962. 5. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal preferred by theassessee accepting the arguments that the sellers haveinsisted for cash payment; the identity was established byassessee accepting the arguments that the sellers haveinsisted for cash payment; the identity was established by furnishing photograph, addresses and witnesses and thedeal was made in the presence of competent authority,which has cross checked the payments, therefore, theentire deal having been made in a legally permissible andtransparent manner, there was no intention to evade tax. 6. While allowing the appeal the CIT (Appeals) also referredto the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Courtin Tax Case No. 13 of 2016 decided on 01.03.2016, tohold that the Assessing Officer is not correct in invokingthe provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act with respect tothe subject transactions. The CIT Appeal thus deleted theadditions made by the AO. The Tribunal has affirmed theorder passed by the CIT(Appeals).to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Courtin Tax Case No. 13 of 2016 decided on 01.03.2016, tohold that the Assessing Officer is not correct in invokingthe provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act with respect tothe subject transactions. The CIT Appeal thus deleted theadditions made by the AO. The Tribunal has affirmed theorder passed by the CIT(Appeals). 6. While allowing the appeal the CIT (Appeals) also referredto the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Courtin Tax Case No. 13 of 2016 decided on 01.03.2016, tohold that the Assessing Officer is not correct in invokingthe provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act with respect tothe subject transactions. The CIT Appeal thus deleted theadditions made by the AO. The Tribunal has affirmed theorder passed by the CIT(Appeals).to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Courtin Tax Case No. 13 of 2016 decided on 01.03.2016, tohold that the Assessing Officer is not correct in invokingthe provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act with respect tothe subject transactions. The CIT Appeal thus deleted theadditions made by the AO. The Tribunal has affirmed theorder passed by the CIT(Appeals). 7. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue at length,however, we are not in a position to take any differentview than the one taken by the Coordinate Bench in thematter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle-1(2) vs M/s R.P. Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. In the said matter,this Court has referred to the order passed by GauhatiHigh Court in [Walford Transport (Eastern India) v. CIT]1999-240 ITR 902 and Saraswati Housing & Developersv. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 142 ITD0198, Delhi Bench (G) to hold that once the Appellatehowever, we are not in a position to take any differentview than the one taken by the Coordinate Bench in thematter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle-1(2) vs M/s R.P. Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. In the said matter,this Court has referred to the order passed by GauhatiHigh Court in [Walford Transport (Eastern India) v. CIT]1999-240 ITR 902 and Saraswati Housing & Developersv. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 142 ITD0198, Delhi Bench (G) to hold that once the Appellate Court and the Tribunal have concurrently found that theexplanation offered by the assessee as to why the cashpayments made to the sellers is acceptable, the samedoes not involve any substantial question of law as thereasoning assigned and the interpretation applied by theTribunal and the CIT (Appeals) are duly supported by thejudicial precedents. 8. In view of the above, we find no substance in this appealas it does not involve any substantial question of law.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.as it does not involve any substantial question of law.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Judge Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ram Prasanna Sharma Akhilesh