2016 (5) TMI 287 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance under section 40A(3)(a) - Held that - The case of the assessee can be said to cover in the exception of rule 6DD(k), as the payment is made by any person (assessee) to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such person (in the instant case, the assessee). The assessee has made the payment to the bank account of the agent which is a finding recorded by the Tribunal who was required to make payment in cash for buying petrol or diesel at different locations. The Assessing Officer on the facts noticed has been unable to make out a case of involvement of unaccounted money. It is also a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that copies of the ledger accounts were produced before the Assessing Officer who has not found any discrepancy in such books of account and no unaccounted transaction has been reported/noticed by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40A(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of rule 6DD(k) in the context of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000.
3. Compliance with the provisions of section 40A(3)(a) in relation to cash payments for business expenses.
4. Assessment of factual findings regarding cash payments made to agents and applicability of exceptions under rule 6DD(k).

Analysis:
1. The High Court heard an Income-tax Appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The dispute centered around the disallowance of cash expenses exceeding Rs. 20,000 under section 40A(3)(a) of the Act.

2. The Assessing Officer disallowed cash expenses of Rs. 2,41,14,570 made by the assessee for purchasing diesel, citing a violation of section 40A(3)(a). However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the nature of transactions with appointed agents and adherence to rule 6DD(k).

3. The appellant contended that the cash payments were in violation of section 40A(3)(a) and should have been disallowed. Citing a Kerala High Court judgment, the appellant argued for the disallowance of expenses. However, the High Court found that the facts of the present case were distinct from the Kerala High Court case as the assessee had directly engaged agents for transactions.

4. The High Court analyzed the applicability of rule 6DD(k) and the exceptions provided therein. It was established that the assessee's payments to agents, deposited in their bank accounts, fell within the exception clause. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO, highlighting the importance of business expediency and genuine transactions in interpreting section 40A(3).

5. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer did not find any unaccounted transactions or discrepancies in the assessee's ledger accounts. Based on these factual findings and the material presented, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and no substantial question of law was deemed to arise from the appeal.

6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the cash payments made to agents did not violate section 40A(3)(a) due to compliance with rule 6DD(k) and the absence of unaccounted transactions.