9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of law for determination u/s 260A - Hence the appeal is dismissed. - TAX CASE (INCOME TAX APPEAL) NO. 13 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2016 - Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy For the Appellant : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per NAVIN SINHA, C.J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against order dated 17.7.2015 allowing I.T.A. No. 173/BLPR/2011, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in regard to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer imposed liability to tax on ₹61,06,000/- applying Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for making cash payment above the prescribed limit. The purpose was preventive to check evasion of tax and flow of unaccounted money or to check transactions which were not genuine and which may be a camouflage to evade tax by showing fictitious and false transactions. In support of his conclusions the Appellate Authority relied upon in 1999 240 ITR 902 Gauhati [Walford Transport (Eastern India) v. CIT]. The payment could be allowed towards expenditure if circumstances so warranted keeping in mind considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors as may be permissible under the rules. The Appellate Authority therefore arrived at the conclusion that in the facts of the case the Assessing Officer had acted mechanically witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payment is made in a village or town, which on the date of such payment is not served by any bank, to any person who ordinarily resides, or is carrying on any business, profession or vocation, in any such village or town; XXX XXX XXX (j) Where the payment was required to be made on a day on which the banks were closed either on account of holiday or strike. 5. The Tribunal has interpreted the aforesaid to hold that cash payments above twenty thousand rupees could be accepted if the conditions prescribed in the rules were fulfilled to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. The reasoning of the Tribunal and the interpretation by it of Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD(g) supported by judicial precedents have not been assailed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
