9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disallowance of cash payment under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Interpretation of exceptions under rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules. 3. Determining if cash payments for goods purchased constitute 'expenditure' under section 40A(3). Analysis: The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disallowing a cash payment of Rs. 62,270 made by the petitioner-assessee, a company, to a partnership firm. The Tribunal found that the cash payments were in violation of section 40A(3) as no exceptional circumstances were established for making cash payments, despite the firm being in the process of being wound up. The Tribunal also noted that the payee firm had accepted payments by cheque a day earlier, indicating no legitimate business need for cash payments. The Tribunal held that the payments did not fall under the exceptions provided in rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules. The Commissioner had earlier allowed the appeal based on exceptions under rule 6DD(j) and the circumstances of the firm closing down. However, the Tribunal disagreed and upheld the disallowance of the cash payments. The petitioner sought to refer questions of law to the High Court, specifically questioning the Tribunal's findings on the applicability of section 40A(3) and the exemption under rule 6DD(j). The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual considerations and did not involve questions of law. The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the Tribunal's assessment of the circumstances did not warrant a legal question for the High Court's consideration. Additionally, the petitioner raised a new question regarding whether the cash payments for goods purchased constituted 'expenditure' under section 40A(3). The Court acknowledged that this question was a legal issue but found that it was not raised before the lower authorities and did not arise from the Tribunal's order. As a result, the Court declined to direct a reference on this new question, stating that it was not relevant to the case at hand. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and summarily dismissed it, as the issues raised did not present legal questions for the Court's consideration based on the Tribunal's factual findings and the absence of relevant legal arguments throughout the proceedings.
|
