2015 (8) TMI 1076 - AT - Income Tax

Addition U/s 40A(3) - book entries in respect of incentives. AO was of the view that they amounted to cash payments CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Merely because some book entries are routed through the assessee s cash book the learned Assessing Officer cannot ignore the real nature of the transactions and arbitrarily hold them as cash payments. They are neither cash payments nor claimed as expenditure by the assessee to be held as violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act. See Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO and Sutlez cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1991 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court ) The fact that these were book entries based on credit and debit notes have not been disputed. Similarly, the amounts transacted were not claimed as expenditure and represented only quantified amounts of incentives provided as per sales and distribution policy of the GPI, they cannot be held as cash payments by any stretch of imagination. These glaring facts could not be controverted by the learned Sr.D.R. In view of the foregoing, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A), which are based on proper appreciation of facts and law and are upheld. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition under Section 40A(3) for A.Y. 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 46,30,144 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) for A.Y. 2009-10. The dispute arose from book entries related to incentives provided by M/s Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. (GPI) to the assessee, a wholesale trader of GPI brands. The revenue contended that these book entries amounted to cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessee argued that the disallowance was unwarranted as the amounts were not claimed as expenditure and were merely book entries based on debit and credit notes. The incentives were part of GPI's distribution policy and were reimbursed through credit notes, not cash payments. The Assessing Officer's adverse inference failed to consider the genuine nature of the transactions, leading to the disallowance under Section 40A(3).

3. The CIT(A) examined the case and found that the amounts in question were not paid in cash to GPI. The incentives were distributed through sales representatives to various retailers, and the debit notes issued by the assessee were reimbursed by GPI through credit notes. The CIT(A) emphasized that the transactions did not breach the Rs. 20,000 limit per person per day under Section 40A(3) as evidenced by the documents submitted by the appellant and verified by the AO from GPI's records.

4. The CIT(A) further highlighted that the entries in the books of account were not conclusive for determining the nature of transactions. The substance of the transactions, not just the book entries, was crucial. Citing legal precedents, the CIT(A) emphasized the need to consider the true nature of transactions to ascertain profit or loss. The absence of cash payments exceeding the Rs. 20,000 limit and the lack of evidence supporting the revenue's claims led the CIT(A) to rule in favor of the assessee.

5. In the appeal before the ITAT Jaipur, the revenue vehemently supported the Assessing Officer's order, while the assessee reiterated that the transactions were not cash payments but incentives routed through book entries. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the transactions were based on credit and debit notes, not cash payments, and were in line with GPI's distribution policy.

6. Ultimately, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings that the book entries did not constitute cash payments under Section 40A(3) and were upheld based on proper appreciation of facts and law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the final decision rendered by the ITAT Jaipur.