9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, specifically addressing two questions related to the applicability of rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and the implications of section 40A(3) regarding cash payments made by the assessee. Interpretation of Rule 6DD(j) of Income-tax Rules, 1962: The assessee, a partnership firm dealing in powerloom cloth, faced an addition to its assessment under section 40A of the Income-tax Act for cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 each to three parties. The genuineness of these payments was contested, with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner finding them legitimate. Notably, one of the payees, Shyam Fabrics, lacked a bank account, invoking clause (j) of rule 6DD. Despite the Revenue's claim that Shyam Fabrics did have a bank account, the Tribunal upheld the genuineness of payments to two parties under exceptional circumstances, maintaining that the payee insisted on cash payments to preserve supplier relations. Application of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act: Section 40A(3) prohibits deductions for payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 not made via crossed cheque or bank draft, subject to exceptions outlined in Rule 6DD. The Tribunal affirmed the genuineness of payments and the payee's identity, focusing on whether cash payments were necessitated by exceptional circumstances or practical difficulties. Given the small proportion of cash payments relative to the total transaction value and the payee's preference for cash, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's explanation, concluding that the cash payments were justified under the circumstances. Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings supported by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's assessment established the legitimacy of the cash payments made by the assessee under exceptional circumstances, in compliance with the provisions of rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules. While the first question was answered in favor of the assessee, the second question, being argumentative, was not deemed a question of law and thus remained unanswered. The reference was resolved accordingly, with no costs imposed.
|
