IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 542/JP/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta cuke ITO Prop.: M/s. Hundiwala Jewellers Vs. Ward- 1(4) Gol Market, Rajgarh PAN/GIR No.: ABTPG 9506 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Manish Agarwal , CA Revenue by :Shri R.A. Verma, Addl CIT-. DR Date of Hearing : 06/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 20 /10/2016 ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM assessee has filed appeal against order of ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 14-03-2016 for assessment year 2007-08 raising therein following grounds:- 1. On facts and in circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 2,99,981/- made u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating fact that return of income was filed by assessee on presumptive basis u/s 44AF of I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, no further disallowance u/s 40A(3) could have been made. Therefore, addition of Rs. 2,99,981/- deserves to be deleted. 2 ITA No. 542/JP/2016 Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (4), Alwar . Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal No. 01 2. On facts and in circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance made u/s 40A(3) by ignoring exceptional circumstances as enumerated under Rule 6DD and necessary evidences submitted in support of claim in shape of affidavits of recipients. Thus disallowance so made deserves to be deleted. 2.1 At outset of hearing, ld. AR of assessee prayed that similar issue was decided by ITAT (SMC) Jaipur Bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 vide its order dated 12-04-2015 in ITA No. 734/JP/2015. Hence, this issue is covered in assessee's own case which may kindly be considered. 2.2 ld. DR relied on orders of authorities below. 2.3 I have heard rival contentions and perused materials available on record. I find merit in submission of ld. AR of assessee that similar issue was decided by this Bench in favour of assessee vide its order dated 12-04-2016 by observing as under:- 2.7 I have heard rival contentions and perused materials available on record. Respectfully following decision of ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in case of Gopalsingh R Rajpurohit vs. ACIT, (supra), I hold that once assessee has filed his return u/s 44AF, no further disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3) of Act. It is noteworthy that in this case no trading irregularity was found and addition has been sustained only on technical issue of Section 40A(3) of Act. presumptive system of 3 ITA No. 542/JP/2016 Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (4), Alwar . tax u/s 44AF starts with non-obstante clause and overrides other provisions. In view thereof, there is no justification in making addition which is deleted. Since addition is deleted on merits, there is no need to go into alternative ground. Thus appeal of assessee is allowed. Respectfully following order of ITAT (SMC) Jaipur Bench dated 12-04-2016 in assessee's own case (supra), I direct to delete addition of Rs. 2,99,981/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A) as issues raised by assessee are covered by ITAT order dated 12-04-2016. 3.0 In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 20 /10/2016 Sd/- (Bhagchand) Accountant Member JaipurDated:- 20/10/ 2016 Copy of order forwarded to: s 1. Appellant- Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Rajgarh 2. Respondent- ITO, Ward- 1 (4), Alwar 3. CIT(A). 4. CIT, 5. ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 542/JP/2016) By order, Assistant. Registrar Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Alwar