9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding inflated expenditure and payments for purchase price of stock. 2. Applicability of rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in cases of payment exceeding Rs. 2,500 made in cash. Analysis: The case involved a firm's assessment for the year 1970-71 where the Income-tax Officer added payments made in cash for purchase of goods under section 40A(3) of the Act due to non-compliance with crossed cheque or bank draft requirement. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner overturned this decision, citing genuine purchases and confirmatory letters from parties. The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, noting the absence of banking facilities for the assessee and reliance on cash payments for commercial reasons. The Tribunal found the case covered under rule 6DD(j) of the Rules, exempting disallowance under section 40A(3) for genuine difficulties in making payments through banks. The second proviso to section 40A(3) allows exceptions for payments exceeding Rs. 2,500, leading to the framing of rule 6DD(j) to address such scenarios. The rule exempts disallowance if payment by cheque or bank draft was impractical due to exceptional circumstances or genuine difficulties faced by the payee. In this case, the genuineness of payments and payees' identity were not in question, focusing on whether exceptional circumstances warranted cash payments. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal found the absence of banking facilities and commercial considerations justified cash payments, aligning with rule 6DD(j) provisions. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal's factual findings were upheld due to the absence of perversity, supported by a CBDT circular clarifying circumstances for rule 6DD(j) application. The court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, affirming the coverage under rule 6DD(j) and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the first question on section 40A(3) interpretation became academic, and the court declined to address it. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and both judges concurred on the decision, highlighting the adequacy of the appellate authorities' assessments and the application of rule 6DD(j) in the case.
|
