9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of exemption under Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Propriety of disallowance of payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 made in cash to two co-operative societies. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The court did not delve into the applicability of Section 40A(3) in detail, considering it academic for the case's outcome. The court proceeded on the assumption that the payments made by the assessee for purchasing sugar at auctions were covered by the expression "any expenditure in respect of which payment is made" under Section 40A(3). 2. Applicability of exemption under Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962: The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions and the purpose behind the enactment of Section 40A. Section 40A(3) mandates disallowance of expenditure if payment exceeding Rs. 2,500 is made otherwise than by a crossed cheque or bank draft. However, the second proviso to Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD(j) provide exceptions to this rule, considering factors like business expediency and the availability of banking facilities. Rule 6DD(j) specifies that no disallowance should be made if the assessee satisfies the Income-tax Officer that payment could not be made by a crossed cheque or bank draft due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances, or if it was not practicable or would cause genuine difficulty to the payee. The court emphasized that "practicability" must be judged from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's. 3. Propriety of disallowance of payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 made in cash to two co-operative societies: The court reviewed the facts of the case, noting that the assessee had to travel long distances to reach the auction sites, and banks were not open during the required times. The co-operative societies accepted either cash or bank drafts drawn on a specific bank branch, further complicating matters for the assessee. The court found that the Tribunal did not adequately consider these practical difficulties from the businessman's standpoint. The court concluded that the assessee's conduct was justified on the grounds of business expediency, as it was not practicable to make the payments by crossed bank drafts due to the time and logistical constraints. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in law by not granting the benefit of Rule 6DD(j) to the assessee for the balance of the purchase price. Conclusion: - Question No. 1: No answer required as the question is academic. - Question No. 2: Answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. - Question No. 3: Answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
|
