1996 (6) TMI 77 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds Commissioner's decision on income tax disallowance, stresses need for exceptional circumstances

The High Court of GAUHATI upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting a disallowance under section 40A(3) of the ... Disallowance Of Cash Payments, High Court Issues:1. Interpretation of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500.2. Justification of the Tribunal's decision in deleting disallowance under section 40A(3) based on exceptional circumstances and entries in the payee's books of account.Analysis:The High Court of GAUHATI addressed two questions referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first issue involved the justification of upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting a disallowance of Rs. 6,36,979.33 made under section 40A(3) of the Act. The second issue pertained to whether the Tribunal erred in implying that no disallowance is required under section 40A(3) if transactions are recorded in the books of account of the payee.The respondent, an assessee under the Act, faced disallowance of cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 by the Assessing Officer for violating section 40A(3). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granted relief by deleting a portion of the disallowance but upheld another portion. The Tribunal sustained the deletion of Rs. 6,36,979.33 but directed verification of payments recorded in the payee's books of account for the remaining amount.During the hearing, Dr. A. K. Saraf argued for the Revenue, emphasizing that exceptional circumstances must justify payments violating section 40A(3). Mr. R. K. Joshi, representing the assessee, contended that the Tribunal's findings on genuineness and exceptional circumstances were final.The High Court found that exceptional circumstances existed for the payment of Rs. 6,36,979.33, supporting the Tribunal's decision. However, regarding the remaining amount, the Court held that mere verification of entries in the books of account was insufficient. It was necessary to establish the presence of exceptional circumstances for those payments, which the Tribunal failed to do.Consequently, the Court answered the first question in favor of the assessee and the second question in favor of the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of verifying exceptional circumstances alongside book entries for disallowance under section 40A(3).