High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Income Tax assessment for AY 2017-18, directs filing appeal within 3 weeks.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Income Tax Act for AY 2017-18. Disallowances were made under Sections 40A(3) and 68 for cash expenditure on firewood and certain credits in bank accounts, respectively. The court held that factual examination was necessary and directed the petitioner to pursue statutory appellate remedy by filing an appeal within three weeks. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to conduct a thorough enquiry into the issues. Recovery of disputed demand was stayed pending appeal, with the impugned assessment order to be revived if no appeal was filed within the specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for AY 2017-18 under Income Tax Act, 1961 - Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash expenditure on firewood - Disallowance under Section 68 for certain credits in bank accounts - Adequate opportunity for petitioner prior to assessment - Applicability of Rule 6DD and identity of creditors - Statutory appellate remedy and powers of Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The petitioner contested an assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for AY 2017-18 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Two disallowances were made - the first under Section 40A(3) for cash expenditure exceeding the permitted limit, related to firewood purchases. The petitioner invoked Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules, 1962, which exempts specified categories from 100% disallowance under Section 40A(3). However, the Assessing Officer rejected this, stating firewood purchases were not covered under Rule 6DD due to the procedure followed in open bidding systems, where farmers do not directly sell firewood in the open market.

Additionally, the assessment proposed disallowance under Section 68 for certain credits in the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner explained these as loans from twelve creditors for medical treatment of a partner in the firm. The explanation was disbelieved due to failure in establishing the creditors' identity, capacity to lend, and the genuineness of the transactions.

The High Court held that both issues required factual examination, making it unsuitable for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's claim of inadequate opportunity before assessment was supported by medical records showing emergency treatment expenses for the partner following a serious accident.

The Court directed the petitioner to pursue statutory appellate remedy by filing a first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within three weeks. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to conduct a thorough enquiry into the petitioner's explanations under Section 68 and the application of Rule 6DD under Section 40A(3). An order of assessment was to be passed afresh within three months of appeal institution, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery of disputed demand was stayed until appeal disposal, with revival of the impugned assessment order if appeal was not filed within the specified timeframe.

Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to pursue appellate remedy. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---