9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 364 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made u/s 40A(3) - payment for purchase was exceeding ₹ 20,000/- - Held that - The payment made by the assessee retail vendor to the Principal, Government of West Bengal through its wholesale agent. The relationship between the assessee (authorized retailer) and Government of West Bengal (the supplier) acting under West Bengal Excise Rules through its Authorised Wholesaler Licensee (Agent), both defacto and dejure , is one of Principal and Agent . We hold that the assessee retail vendor had made payment to the said agent (wholsesale licensee) would fall under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(k) of the Rules. We hold from the aforesaid findings that the assessee s case falls under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Rules. We have no hesitation in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in all the years under appeal. There could be no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly we direct the ld AO to delete the same - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in deleting the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had disallowed a sum of ?68,83,044/- on the grounds that the assessee made payments exceeding ?20,000/- in cash for the purchase of country spirit, thus violating Section 40A(3). Facts: The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in trading country spirit, made cash payments directly to the bank account of M/s IFB Agro Industries Ltd., the wholesale licensee. The AO disallowed these payments under Section 40A(3), which restricts cash payments exceeding ?20,000/-. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, and the Revenue appealed against this decision. Tribunal’s Findings: The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the case of Ramnagar Pachai & C.S. Shop vs. ITO, where it was held that cash payments directly deposited into the bank account of the payee can be exempt under Rule 6DD if it ensures that the payee alone receives the payment and the transaction is traceable. Legal Provisions and Notifications: The Tribunal examined the provisions of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2005, and the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. According to the notification dated 29.8.2005, retail vendors like the assessee were mandated to make payments directly into the bank account of the wholesale licensee. This procedure was established to ensure strict regulation and prevent black marketing. Exception under Rule 6DD: The Tribunal noted that payments made to the government or under government rules in legal tender are exempt under Rule 6DD(b). Since the wholesale licensee acted as an agent of the State Government, the payments also fell under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(k), which covers payments made to an agent who is required to make payments in cash on behalf of the payer. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the payments made by the assessee to the wholesale licensee were in compliance with the State Government’s regulations and fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and (k). Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified. However, a separate cash payment of ?3,48,392/- to M/s United Spirits Ltd. for the purchase of beer was upheld as it violated Section 40A(3). Final Order: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for the payments made to the wholesale licensee. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 04.07.2018.
|
