2009 (11) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Cash Payment disallowance u/s 43A(3) read with rule 6DD - . The assessee is engaged in sale and purchase of tractors and its spare parts, mainly required by agriculture sector. The Assessing Officer made assessment for the year in question but thereafter CIT exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that as per CBDT s circular No. 220 dated 31.5.1977 confirmation of concern party was required before benefit of Rule 6 DD (j) was allowed. ITAT deleted the addition - It is clear from the above observations that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and confirmations were furnished to the Assessing Officer from the parties who were supplying agricultural implements and had no bank account. ITAT order maintained decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Application of Rule 6DD (j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. Assessment of cash payments made by the assessee.
4. Validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the application of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, where the CIT set aside the Assessing Officer's order concerning the confirmation of cash payments made by the assessee. The Tribunal overturned the CIT's decision, emphasizing that necessary confirmations were provided by the parties involved in the transactions, as required by law.

2. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the relevance of Rule 6DD (j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in conjunction with the CBDT's circular No. 220 dated 31.5.1977. It was noted that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and received confirmations from the concerned parties, including a certification from a Chartered Accountant, regarding the cash payments made for agricultural implements.

3. The judgment highlighted that the sales of the assessee were not in question, indicating that corresponding purchases were evident. The Tribunal referenced a previous ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing that Section 40A (3) of the Act should be considered alongside Rule 6DD, and that the circumstances outlined in the circular were illustrative rather than exhaustive.

4. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Assessing Officer had appropriately verified the cash payments and received necessary confirmations from the relevant parties. As a result, the Tribunal found no legal issue to be raised and dismissed the application, affirming the validity of the Assessing Officer's order.

This detailed analysis underscores the Tribunal's thorough examination of the legal provisions and factual circumstances surrounding the assessment, providing clarity on the interpretation and application of the relevant tax laws in the context of the case at hand.