9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Officer in this behalf ?" The assessee is a business firm at Tezpur in Assam. The assessee paid to Eastern Hardware Co. (India) the sum of Rs. 9,600, to Assam Asbestos Limited the sum of Rs. 16,000 and to Shew Prasad Mohanlal the sum of Rs. 24,959. The total of these three amounts is Rs. 50,559 which was paid in cash to the three firms at Tezpur. Similarly, relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee paid to Steel Stores Rs. 19,030 and to Bajaj Engineering Co. Rs. 17,500. The total of these two amounts is Rs. 36,530. These amounts were also paid in cash at Tezpur. The payments were made to the five firms who have their principal seat at Gauhati. The assessee tendered proof before the Income-tax Officer showing that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash. In the nature of things whether in the statute, rules or circulars, all the contingencies cannot be enumerated exhaustively. Parliament referred to the inadequacy of facilities in section 40A. The rule-making authorities illustrated some of the circumstances in the Rules. The Revenue supplemented the further circumstances when exemptions can be claimed and allowed. The circular recited that if a seller does not have a bank account and payments are made at a place where either the purchaser or the seller does not have a bank account or payments are made on a bank holiday or the seller is refusing to accept payment by cheque or draft or the purchaser's business interest is shown to suffer due to the non-availability of goods, the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Calcutta High Court, payment made was shown to have been made in unavoidable circumstances and, therefore, was exempted. The Kerala High Court in Rajarajeswari Weaving Mills v. ITO [1978] 113 ITR 405, held that payment was made on the "insistence" of the customer and, therefore, payment was allowed. In Narayan Bijoy Kumar v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 695, the High Court of Patna found that circumstances were "unavoidable" and, therefore, exemption was granted. In Bhilai Motors v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 147, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the findings reached by the Tribunal were findings of fact and, therefore, for that reason, did not call for interference. In U. P. Hardware Store v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 664, the Allahabad High Court did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
