M/S. Hind Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 30 August, 2023
8. Further, drawing our attention towards relevant part of the first
appellate order the ld CIT DR submitted that the ld first appellate
authority granted part relief to the assessee deleting the part
disallowance of Rs. 25,23,81,862/- for purchase of raw material which
was paid through account payee cheques and was not falling within the
rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act. Regarding remaining part of the
sustained disallowance the ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) after
considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in detail,
found that the benefit of exception provided in Rule 6DD(f) of the Rules
was not available to the assessee as the applicant failed to prove
identity of the suppliers and genuineness of the purchase. The ld CIT
DR submitted that the first appellate authority rightly relied on the
judgment of C. V. George and Sons Vs. ACIT (2006) 286 ITR 389 and
also rightly distinguished the judgment of ITAT Bangalore Bench and in
case of CIT Vs. Renukeswara Rice Mills (2005) 93 ITD 263. The ld CIT
DR submitted that the assessee claimed to have purchased frozen meat
from the farmers in huge quantity in violation of section 40A(3) of the
Act but it is surprising that how can the farmers have equipment and
facility to convert the raw meat into frozen meat in their villages.