1999 (8) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged violation of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Addition of Rs. 6,83,258 in the income-tax assessment.

Summary:

1. Validity of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the validity of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which disallows 20% of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 in the computation of business expenditure. The petitioner argued that this provision is arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the main objective of section 40A(3) is to regulate financial transactions and prevent the use of unaccounted money or black money in business transactions. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 667, which upheld the validity of section 40A(3) on the grounds that it does not restrict business activities but ensures the genuineness of payments.

2. Alleged violation of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that the deletion of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, which previously allowed exceptions for genuine cash transactions, made section 40A(3) more stringent and violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The court held that the rule-making authority has the discretion to amend rules to achieve the objectives of the Act. The deletion of these sub-clauses was seen as a step to strengthen the regulation of business transactions and curb tax evasion. The court found no arbitrariness or discrimination in the amended provision.

3. Addition of Rs. 6,83,258 in the income-tax assessment:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Act, had made cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000, which led the Assessing Officer to add 20% of the amount paid in cash (Rs. 6,83,258) to the income of the assessee u/s 40A(3). The petitioner claimed that the cash transactions were genuine and should be allowable as expenditure. The court, however, upheld the addition, emphasizing that the amended provision of section 40A(3) is valid and does not allow for such cash payments to be deductible.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and confirming that the deletion of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of rule 6DD(j) does not render the section unconstitutional. The court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge and ruled that the provision is a legitimate measure to curb the circulation of black money and regulate business transactions.