AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.06.2023, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessment order in this appeal is passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] under section 143(3) of the Act.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1.That the assessing authority has not given any reasonable opportunity of being heard. So, the assessment order is illegal and unjustified.
2.That the allegation of the assessing authority that not a single compliance has been made by assessee against notice under section 142(2) is wrong and unjustified
3.That the addition under the head salary A/c Rs. 9410850/-due to violation of the provision section 40A(3) of income tax act 1961 is wrong and unjustified
4.That assessing authority has assumed the salary paid to employees as cash above the cash limit is wrong and unjustified
5.That the total addition in assessment order is wrong & justified and against the natural justice
6.The Appellant craves to alter, Modified, Add or Delete any Grounds of Appeal aforesaid.
Hence the order is liable to be quashed.
The sole issue involved in this case is the addition made under section 40A(3). None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we decide to proceed ex-parte with the assistance of the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative.
The assessee is an individual and in the business of liquor sale. The assessee has declared a total turnover of Rs 23.82 crore and has declared an income of Rs 13,40,870/- in the year under consideration. The ld. DR pointed out that the AO has made addition of Rs.94,10,250/- on account of the fact that the assessee has made total payment towards salary in cash. The AO has stated in its order that the assessee has paid salary to each employee ranging from Rs.15,000/- to 22,000/- in cash. Though the assessee has claimed that no one was paid exceeding Rs.10,000/- as per prescribed limited under section 40A(3) in a single day, she however could not substantiate its claim with any documentary evidence. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence to satisfy the ld. CIT(A) that the provision of section 40A(3) r.w.r 6DD would not be applicable to the assessee leading to his confirming the addition made by the AO.
We have carefully perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A) has adequately dealt with the issue of opportunities granted by the AO to the assessee and found that the AO gave proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish all the details. We also find that the CIT(A) has given a finding of fact, after examining the Wage register and ledgers for payment of salary, that the employees of the assessee were given more than Rs 10,000/- per month in cash. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A), hence, the grounds raised by the assessee is rejected.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.53/Del/2024 is therefore dismissed.