2002 (10) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Deduction for Cash Purchase Expenditure under Income-tax Act

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Chennai, regarding the disallowance of expenditure under section ... The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various spices. The raw materials for the manufacture of the said products are mainly chilly, corriander, turmeric, etc. The appellant purchased those raw materials from various markets in the State of Tamil Nadu by paying the price in cash. The payment in cash exceeding ten thousand rupees. The assessing authority relying on the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act read with rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules disallowed an amount of Rs. 46,32,449 from the expenditure incurred. – Held that assessing officer was not right in disallowing an amount of Rs. 46,32,449 from the expenditure incurred Issues:Challenge to disallowance of expenditure under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for cash purchases exceeding Rs. 10,000.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Chennai, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of expenditure under section 40A(3) of the Act. The respondent-assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of spices, purchased raw materials in cash from markets in Tamil Nadu. The assessing authority disallowed an amount of Rs. 46,32,449 from the expenditure incurred, citing section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance, which was confirmed by the Tribunal after considering the explanation provided by the appellant.The main contention raised by the appellant was that the assessee failed to explain the circumstances specified in rule 6DD(j) to justify the cash payments for raw materials purchased. The appellant argued that the suppliers were not inclined to accept cheques, and the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. However, the respondent-assessee contended that due to being a new business and dealing with suppliers who preferred cash payments, they were justified in making cash purchases. The assessing authority did not doubt the genuineness of the transactions, and all purchases were supported by bills.The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, emphasizing that the provisions of rule 6DD(j) were satisfied in the assessee's case. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for expeditious settlement of transactions and the absence of any doubt regarding the genuineness of the payments made. The assessing authority's remand report confirmed the genuineness of the transactions and the support provided by regular bills.Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities' decision to allow the deduction of expenditure. The Court found that the appellant had satisfied the requirements of rule 6DD(j) by providing a reasonable explanation for the cash payments based on the specific circumstances of the case. The Court concluded that the decision was not unreasonable and should not be considered a precedent for future assessments.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the application of relevant legal provisions, and the reasoning behind the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal.