2018 (6) TMI 298 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules against cash payments for truck loading wages, emphasizes tax compliance and evidence requirements.

COMM. OF INCOME TX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA Versus M/s. LAL TRADERS & AGENCIES (P) LTD.

The High Court of Calcutta ruled that cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit for truck loading wages without tax deduction at source were not ... Cash payments made in violation of Section 40A(3) - payment made in cash and without deducting tax at source - Held that:- As per Rule 6DD payment by assessee is made in a village or town, which on the date of such payment, is not served by any bank - since no adequate evidence to invoke the benefit under Rule 6DD(g) of the Act had been presented by the assessee - thus the order passed by the appellate Tribunal is set aside by remanding the matter before the relevant CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Issues:1. Whether payments in excess of Rs. 1 crore made in a financial year on account of truck loading wages could have all been made in cash and without deducting tax at source.Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta addressed the issue of whether payments exceeding Rs. 1 crore for truck loading wages in a financial year could be made in cash without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer noted the expenses incurred by the assessee and observed that cash payments exceeding the limit specified in Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been made to a single person. The assessee relied on Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, specifically Clause (g), which allows for cash payments in areas not served by banks. However, the court highlighted the lack of evidence presented to establish eligibility for the exemption under Rule 6DD(g) before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals).The court found that the appellate Tribunal erred in presuming that all truck loading was done in a village not served by a bank or that payments were made in such a village. The Tribunal's decision to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order without sufficient evidence to invoke the Rule 6DD(g) benefit was deemed erroneous. Consequently, the court held that the Tribunal's order dated March 16, 2016 could not be sustained on the legal issue at hand.In conclusion, the court allowed ITA No.45 of 2018 and GA No.2779 of 2016, setting aside the appellate Tribunal's order and remanding the matter to the relevant Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support claims for exemptions under tax rules and highlighted the need for a thorough review based on legal provisions.