Statutory excise payments through prescribed banking channels fall within the section 40A(3) exception; purchase-difference addition sustained.

Payments made for country spirit under a statutory excise framework, by deposit into the wholesale licensee's bank account, were treated as covered by the recognised exceptions to disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the prescribed banking mechanism and the wholesale licensee's statutory role brought the transaction within the payment exceptions, so the disallowance was not sustainable. By contrast, the addition based on a difference in purchases and consequential profit was sustained because the assessee offered no satisfactory explanation and did not advance arguments on that ground. The appeal therefore succeeded only on the section 40A(3) issue and otherwise failed, resulting in partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cash payments made for purchase of country spirit through deposit into the wholesale licensee's bank account fell within the exception to disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the addition made on account of difference in purchases and consequential profit was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether cash payments made for purchase of country spirit through deposit into the wholesale licensee's bank account fell within the exception to disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The payment mechanism was prescribed by the State excise regime governing sale and supply of country spirit. The wholesale licensee acted under a statutory framework requiring the retail vendor to make payment to the credit of the wholesale licensee, and the payments were made by direct deposit into the bank account of the concerned wholesale entity. On these facts, the payment was treated as falling within the exceptions contemplated by the payment rules, including the provision relating to payment to Government and the provision relating to payment through an agent.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40A(3) was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made on account of difference in purchases and consequential profit was sustainable.

Analysis: The addition was made on the basis of information received from the supplier showing a higher sales figure, and no satisfactory explanation was offered before the authorities or the Tribunal. The assessee also did not advance arguments on this ground before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The addition was sustained and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the disallowance under section 40A(3) and failed on the purchase-difference addition, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a payment is made under a statutory excise scheme to a government-controlled wholesale licensee through the prescribed banking mechanism, the transaction falls within the recognised exception to section 40A(3) and no disallowance can be made on that ground.

---