9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant previous year is the Dewali Year. 2. The only contention canvassed on behalf of the assessee before me is that the payments aggregating Rs. 15,790 were admissible deductions in view of the provisions of Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee had purchased Bardana from the following persons and made payments in cash over and above Rs. 2,500 each: (1) Hazari Lal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces necessitating the payments by cash and Rule 6DD was not attracted. In that view, he disallowed the claim of the assessee. 3. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessee filed certificates from these parties stating that they had no bank accounts and that they required cash payments because they had to pay cash to the persons from whom they purchased Bard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossed cheques or crossed bank drafts. It was further submitted that the assessee produced evidence in support of these contentions and the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the payments which were otherwise genuine and were made in cash due to unavoidable circumstances. 5. On behalf of the revenue, reliance was placed on the orders of the authorities below and it was submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Bardana from Pheriwalas etc. to whom the payments had to be made in cash. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the payments by crossed cheques or crossed bank drafts were not practicable and would have caused genuine difficulties to payee having regard to the nature of the transactions, and, therefore, R. 6DD (j) is clearly attracted. I therefore, allow the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
