2016 (2) TMI 1098 - AT - Income Tax

Grant of deductions under section 40A(3) - Held that - In the present case, detailed submissions with corroborative evidences were filed before the lower authorities including that of the AO as well as the learned CIT (Appeals). The elaborate submissions were made to prove that the expenses incurred in cash were genuine which were paid to the seller for purchase of land and there were practical expediency because of which the payments have to be made in cash. This is an undisputed fact. The payee has given an affidavit which was filed before the Assessing Officer as well whereby he affirmed the fact that he does not have any bank account. These facts have not been conroverted by AO nor the learned CIT (Appeals) and the party was identifiable. He was of the view that the assessee is required to prove that due to exceptional and unavoidable circumstances as provided under the Rules, the payments were made in cash. Therefore, it is not a case of the Department that the payments so made in cash were not genuine. The reasons given by the assessee at every stage have not been disbelieved. The payments cannot be disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. The addition is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Application of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act to disallow expenses claimed as business expenses due to cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the disallowance of expenses on the purchase of land claimed as business expenses under section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee had paid the seller in cash, leading to the addition by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the seller, an illiterate agriculturist, did not have a bank account and refused payment by cheque. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that the case did not fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules for section 40A(3), where payments in a village or town without banking facilities were allowed. The appeal was then filed challenging this decision.

The Tribunal analyzed a similar case decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, where payments exceeding the limit were made in cash due to business exigency, and the genuineness of transactions was not doubted. The High Court held that in such cases, disallowance under section 40A(3) cannot be made. Referring to this judgment, the Tribunal found that the payments in the present case were genuine, made due to practical expediency, and the payee's lack of a bank account was confirmed. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons for cash payments were not disputed, establishing a case of business expediency, thus deleting the addition under section 40A(3) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed based on these findings.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payments made in cash for the purchase of land were genuine, necessitated by business expediency, and not subject to disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was influenced by a previous judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing the importance of proving business expediency and genuineness of transactions to avoid disallowance under the said provision.