9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 874 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance on the ground of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act Cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000 to Arahtiya - kachcha Arahtiya - Held that - Assessee was maintaining all the books of account and also accounts on all statutory forms required under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1962. Rule 6DD (e) and (k) of the Income Tax Rules are clearly attracted in the case as the purchases were made in the present case in commission agency business from the farmers - Whenever purchases were made through commission agents kachcha Arahtiya payment was made in cash to make such payments to the farmers. Rule 6DD(e) is applicable as exemption where the payment is made for the purchase of agricultural produce from purchaser. Rule 6DD (k) is attracted, where the payment is made by any person through agent, who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such persons - The payments, therefore, could not have been disallowed on the ground of the violation of Section 40A (3) of the Act Decided against the Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 40-A(3) 2. Applicability of Circulars in relation to cash payments 3. Rejection of applicability of Circular No.34 dated 05.03.1970 4. Consideration of Rule 6-DD exemptions 5. Disallowance under Section 40-A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000 6. Application of Rule 6DD (e) and (k) in the case Interpretation of Section 40-A(3): The appeal involved the interpretation of Section 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute revolved around whether the purchases made on behalf of other parties attracted Section 40-A(3) and whether the disallowance under this section applied to the purchases made on the assessee's own trading account. The ITAT found that Section 40-A(3) was not attracted in this case due to the nature of the purchases made. Applicability of Circulars in relation to cash payments: The appeal also raised questions regarding the applicability of various Circulars issued by the CBDT. The ITAT considered Circular No.452, which shed light on the functioning of 'kachcha Arahtiya' and 'pucca Arahtiya'. The ITAT found that the case was covered by Rule 6DD exemptions, particularly Rule 6DD (k), which deals with payments made through agents required to make cash payments on behalf of the principal. Rejection of applicability of Circular No.34 dated 05.03.1970: The rejection of the applicability of Circular No.34 dated 05.03.1970 was a crucial aspect of the case. The A.O. had initially rejected the contention that this circular exempted payments to 'Arahtiya' from the provisions of Section 40A(3). However, the ITAT found that the case fell within the exemptions provided under Rule 6DD, specifically Rule 6DD (k). Consideration of Rule 6-DD exemptions: The ITAT carefully considered the provisions of Rule 6-DD, which provide exemptions under Section 40A(3) for certain types of payments. In this case, the ITAT found that the assessee's payments to 'kachcha Arahtiya' were covered by Rule 6DD (k) as they acted as agents mediating between farmers and purchasers. Disallowance under Section 40-A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000: The issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000 was central to the appeal. The ITAT analyzed the nature of business operations and found that the payments made in cash were in accordance with the exemptions provided under Rule 6DD, thereby justifying the rejection of disallowance. Application of Rule 6DD (e) and (k) in the case: The ITAT's decision was based on the application of Rule 6DD (e) and (k) in the case. It was established that the purchases made through commission agents ('kachcha Arahtiya') necessitated cash payments to farmers, thereby falling within the exemptions provided under these rules. The ITAT concluded that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not applicable in this scenario. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the income tax appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The judgment extensively analyzed the provisions of Section 40A(3), Rule 6DD exemptions, and the applicability of Circulars in the context of cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000, providing a detailed interpretation of the legal issues involved in the case.
|
