2022 (6) TMI 878 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40A - payment of expenditure in cash - plea taken by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is that the Ld. AO has not disputed the genuineness of the impugned expenditure and accepted the sale made by the assessee based on such expenditure - HELD THAT - We are of the view that this is not enough to bring the case of the assessee out of the ambit of the mandatory provision of section 40A(3). The assessee also claimed that its case is covered under Rule 6DD without specifying under which sub-rule of Rule 6DD as amended by the Income Tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2008 its case falls. In such scenario, in our opinion it would be just and fair if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for decision afresh. Ld. AO shall give reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case and to bring on record all the material in support of its claim that its case falls under Rule 6DD. Thereafter, Ld. AO shall pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Appeal is partly allowed

Summary

Issues:
Rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act regarding disallowance under section 40A(3) based on audit objection.

Analysis:

1. The assessee, a firm trading iron and steel, filed its return for the assessment year 2013-14, disclosing income of Rs. 12,98,577. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 13,98,577, including an adhoc addition of Rs. 1,00,000. Subsequently, a rectificatory order was passed under section 154 based on an audit objection regarding payments for trading goods made in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act.

2. The assessee challenged the rectificatory order before the CIT(A), arguing that the disallowance under section 40A(3) was not justified as the genuineness of expenditure was not disputed in the original assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the order, stating that section 40A(3) is a mandatory provision overlooked in the original assessment, rectifiable under section 154 as per legal precedents.

3. The assessee contended that the disallowance under section 40A(3) was a debatable issue and outside the scope of section 154. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that overlooking mandatory provisions in the original assessment constitutes an apparent mistake of law, rectifiable under section 154.

4. Regarding the challenge on merits, the tribunal noted the legislative intent behind section 40A(3) as an anti-tax evasion measure. The tribunal found that the assessee failed to specify under which sub-rule of Rule 6DD its case fell, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

5. In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law and after giving the assessee an opportunity to support its claim under Rule 6DD.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the rectification under section 154 and the challenge to the disallowance under section 40A(3) comprehensively.