2018 (10) TMI 869 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed Upholding Tax Disallowance - Importance of Compliance

The Appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on cash payments for Kerosene purchase was dismissed. The Court upheld the disallowance ... Addition u/s 40A - cash payment exceeding permissible limit - Held that:- The Rule relevant at the time, namely Rule 6 (DD) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 would enable the Assessee to urge that the exceptional or unavoidable circumstances led to payment made in cash. However, the reliance was placed on the District Supply Officer's order and which does not mandate any mode of payment either in cash or by cheque. It only says that the essential commodity should reach ration shop holders on making payment and within three days thereof. Beyond that, it can never override the stipulation in the I. T. Act. Such is the understanding of both the First Appellate Authority as also the Tribunal. In fact, the First Appellate Authority has rendered a detailed finding of fact as to how the huge cash payment has been made by the Assessee who claims to be an Agriculturalist and his whole agricultural income is exempted from I. T. Act. Additionally, he is a dealer but at or near Solapur this Assessee's ration shop was located. There were banking channels available even when supplies have been effected from the remote corner of Maharashtra. It is in these circumstances that there is no justification to invoke the proviso are the concurrent findings of fact. These findings of fact are based on the material produced on record. They cannot be said to be vitiated by perversity or error of law apparent on the face of the record - Decided against assessee. Issues:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench at Pune for Assessment year 2009-2010 regarding cash payment made by Assessee for purchase of Kerosene from M/s. Baldawa and Company.Analysis:1. Cash Payment Invoking Section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961:- The Assessee challenged the invocation of Section 40A(3) due to cash payment exceeding a specified limit for the purchase of Kerosene.- The provision aims to discourage cash payments beyond a limit and promote legal and fair payment channels.- The Assessee argued that the payment was made as per guidance from the District Civil Supply Officer, exempting it from the provision.- However, the Assessing Officer found both parties had banking facilities, making the proviso inapplicable.- The First Appellate Authority and Tribunal upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the importance of banking transactions and adherence to the law.2. District Supply Officer's Order and Payment Mode:- The Assessee claimed the District Supply Officer's order justified the cash payment, but the order did not specify the mode of payment.- The Tribunal highlighted that the order aimed to ensure timely supply of essential commodities to ration card holders, not to bypass tax regulations.- The First Appellate Authority detailed the Assessee's cash payments, noting the availability of banking facilities despite remote supply locations.- The concurrent findings emphasized the lack of justification for invoking the proviso under Section 40A(3) based on factual evidence.3. Appeal and Justification for Admission:- The Court dismissed the Assessee's Appeal, noting the lack of justification for challenging the concurrent findings of fact.- The Court rejected the Appeal as the circumstances did not warrant admission based on the State's Appeal and contrary findings.- The decision highlighted that the findings were based on factual records and not tainted by any legal errors or perversity.In conclusion, the Appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding cash payments for Kerosene purchase was dismissed by the Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to tax regulations, discouraging cash payments beyond specified limits, and ensuring transactions through legal banking channels. The District Supply Officer's order did not override tax laws, and the Assessee's justifications for cash payments were deemed unjustified. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact, highlighting the lack of legal errors or perversity in the decision-making process.