9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against deletion of addition under Section 40A(3) by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,595 made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 40A(3) in the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee, a registered firm engaged in the manufacturing of aluminium utensils, had purchased goods in cash, leading to the disallowance by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's argument that the nature of the business necessitated cash payments to petty hawkers for purchasing raw materials, and thus, allowed the appeal. The Revenue, aggrieved by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, contended before the Tribunal that the assessee did not meet the conditions specified under Rule 6DD(j) for deduction. The departmental representative argued that since the assessee's case did not fall within the exceptions provided in the rule, the deduction should not be allowed. On the other hand, the assessee's representative emphasized that the goods were purchased from petty hawkers due to the nature of the business, making it impractical to establish the identity of the parties or make payments through cheques or drafts. Upon considering the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal noted that the assessee, being engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminium utensils, had to procure raw materials from small, unorganized hawkers who lacked banking facilities. The Tribunal observed that the business being in its initial year, the assessee may not have fully comprehended the implications of Section 40A(3) and the related rules. Referring to Rule 6DD(j), the Tribunal highlighted that it allows payments in cash under exceptional circumstances, such as when payment by cheques or drafts is not practicable and would cause genuine difficulties to the payee. The Tribunal concluded that given the nature of the transactions with illiterate petty hawkers and the necessity for expeditious settlements, it was not feasible for the assessee to make payments through cheques or drafts. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision to delete the addition was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
