K. Narasimha Chary ORDER
K. Narasimha Chary, Member (J)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11/09/2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad ("Ld. CIT(A)"), in the case of Smt. Shashikala Ramkumar ("the assessee") for the assessment year 2014-15, assessee preferred this appeal.
2. Two additions, namely, Rs. 47,60,415/-and Rs. 2,63,06,238/-made under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") are challenged in this appeal by the assessee. Relevant facts are that the assessee, carrying on business in the name of M/s. Ganesh Travels, filed her return of income on 31/12/2014 for the assessment year 2014-15, declaring total income at Rs. 42,88,720/-. Learned Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by making disallowance of Rs. 63,65,549/-under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not affecting TDS in respect of interest and financial charges, and Rs. 2,62,06,238/-under section 40A(3) of the Act for making cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/-in contravention of the provisions of law.
3. In appeal, assessee produced certificates relevant under proviso to section 201(1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 18,30,101/-and learned CIT(A) accepted the same and granted relief to that extent. Learned CIT(A), however, confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,62,06,238/-under section 40A(3) of the Act stating that no ledger account regarding such expense was produced and the certificate issued by Santosh Service Station is not an authenticated one.
4. Assessee is therefore before us in this appeal stating that subsequent to the first appellate proceedings, the assessee could secure the relevant certificates from M/s. Tata Motors, L&T Finance Ltd., and BMW Finance, to the tune of Rs. 26,84,153/-, but in respect of others, the assessee produced the letters of request to furnish similar certificate, but they could not secure the same due to long lapse of time. In respect of the other addition of Rs. 2,62,06,238/-under section 40A(3) of the Act, assessee produced a certificate issued by Santosh Service Station, stating that they refused to entertain the cheques issued by the assessee since cheques issued by the assessee were bounced on account of attachment of the bank accounts by various Governmental agencies. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO MANU/SC/0465/1991 : [1991] 59 Taxman 11 (SC), PCIT vs. Sumukha Synthetics MANU/TN/4839/2020 : [2020] 119 taxmann.com 234 (Madras) and other decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned DR contended that without complying with the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to seek deletion of the amount added under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Likewise, unless the assessee proves the circumstances under rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules), the assessee cannot claim any exception to section 40A(3) of the Act. On this premise, he justified the action of the authorities below.
6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Coming to the addition under s........