2017 (6) TMI 488 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed: Cash payments to WBSEDCL exempt under Rule 6DD(b) & Section 40A(3) disallowance unjustified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that cash payments to WBSEDCL were exempt under Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules, and disallowance under Section 40A(3) ... Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 40A(3) - cash payments made to West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) - CIT assumed his jurisdiction only on the ground that the said cash payments were made on different dates and the same do not fall under any of the exceptions of Rule 6DD of the IT Rules - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee paid such cash payments towards power charges to West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) and debited the same to its P & L account on different dates from April‘09 to Feb’10. Cash payments made to West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) is covered by the exception Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules and as such no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act can be made. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Issues:Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding cash payments made by the assessee to West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited exceeding prescribed limits.Analysis:The appeal was against the order passed by the CIT(A) declaring the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to cash payments made by the assessee to WBSEDCL. The CIT contended that such payments contravened Section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee argued that the payments were exempt under Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules as WBSEDCL is controlled by the Government of West Bengal. The CIT rejected the assessee's submissions, leading to the appeal.The Tribunal found that WBSEDCL is owned and controlled by the Government of West Bengal, and the genuineness of the payments was not in dispute. The CIT exercised jurisdiction based on the cash payments made on different dates, not falling under any exceptions of Rule 6DD. The Tribunal analyzed the legal status of WBSEDCL and referred to a similar case involving MSRTC, where it was held to be a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Tribunal concluded that the cash payments to WBSEDCL were covered by Rule 6DD(b) exception, and disallowance under Section 40A(3) was unwarranted.The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing that Section 40A(3) should be read in conjunction with Rule 6DD, allowing for genuine business transactions and exemptions for cash payments to government entities. The Tribunal referred to case laws supporting the genuineness of transactions made in cash exceeding limits. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 40A(3) did not apply to the cash payments made to WBSEDCL, directing the AO to delete the disallowance and allowing the appeal of the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that cash payments to WBSEDCL fell under the exception of Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules, and no disallowance under Section 40A(3) could be made. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal status of WBSEDCL and the exemptions provided under the relevant rules.