2021 (6) TMI 451 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant's Appeal Allowed for Verification of Cash Payments under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the timing of purchases and cash payments, ... Addition u/s 40(A)(3) - payments exceeding permiciable limit - expenditure incurred in cash towards purchase of goods - HELD THAT:- We find that there is no dispute that the assessee has made certain payments exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in cash and therefore, the provisions of section 40(A)(3) would get attracted provided the transaction fall under Rule 6DD of IT Rules. The explanation given by the assessee was that all the purchases were made on Saturdays and that too after banking hours. This contention has not been verified by the Assessing Officer. This contention of the assessee falls under clause (j) of Rule 6DD. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the same denovo. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given a fair opportunity of hearing. Assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:Appeal against disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 made for purchase of goods from Walmart India (P) Ltd. during A.Y. 2014-15.Detailed Analysis:1. Principle of Natural Justice and Legality of CIT (A) Order:The appellant contended that the CIT (A)'s order was against the principle of natural justice and bad in law. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue specifically in the judgment.2. Disallowance of Cash Payments under Section 40A(3):The main issue revolved around the disallowance of Rs. 11,78,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the cash payments were necessitated due to the nature of business transactions with Walmart India (P) Ltd., a wholesale store, where realization of cheques or DDs took 3 to 4 working days, causing delays detrimental to the business. The appellant highlighted that the purchases were made partly through credit cards and partly in cash due to business exigencies. The Tribunal observed that the provisions of section 40A(3) would apply if the transactions did not fall under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. The contention that purchases were made on Saturdays after banking hours fell under clause (j) of Rule 6DD. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect afresh, emphasizing the importance of giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.3. Genuineness of Transactions and Consideration of Assessee's Submissions:The appellant raised concerns regarding the genuineness of transactions between the parties and urged the CIT (A) to consider the submissions made. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in the judgment.4. Supporting Case Laws and Documentary Evidence:The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their contentions and also presented ledger accounts and invoices from Walmart India (P) Ltd. to demonstrate the timing and nature of purchases. This evidence was crucial in establishing the business necessity and genuineness of the transactions.5. Arguments of the Parties:The appellant's counsel argued in favor of deleting the additions made under section 40A(3), emphasizing the genuine nature of purchases from a reputable multinational company. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities, advocating for the confirmation of the disallowance.6. Decision and Outcome:After considering the arguments and material on record, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the appellant's contentions regarding the timing of purchases and cash payments, ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing for the assessee.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the core issue of disallowance under section 40A(3) while highlighting the importance of verifying the factual aspects of the transactions. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh verification underscored the significance of adherence to procedural fairness and thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 made for business transactions.