Tribunal upholds decision disallowing payments under Income Tax Act, finding deliberate evasion (3)

The tribunal upheld the decision to disallow Rs. 23,22,676 under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the assessee's practice of splitting payments to avoid the cash payment limit was deliberate and lacked a valid explanation. The tribunal concluded that the assessee's actions were an attempt to circumvent the law and did not qualify for any exceptions. The appeal was dismissed on 25/08/2021.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The primary issue in this case is the disallowance of Rs. 23,22,676 under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 in a single day. The assessee contended that no single payment exceeded Rs. 20,000 in a day and that the nature of their business necessitated cash payments for the purchase of used ornaments. They argued that the payments were split into amounts below Rs. 20,000 on different dates to avoid the provisions of Section 40A(3). Furthermore, the assessee claimed that the entries in the cash book showing single entries of cash payments were errors of record rather than errors of transaction.

The Assessing Officer (AO) observed numerous instances where cash payments exceeded Rs. 20,000 against purchases of old gold jewelry, which violated Section 40A(3). The AO noted that the assessee made cash payments above Rs. 20,000 in various cases and intentionally split the amounts on the bills to circumvent the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The AO issued a show-cause notice, and upon the assessee's response, rejected their contention and disallowed the sum of Rs. 23,22,676.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee's practice of splitting payments on the same bill to amounts below Rs. 20,000 was deliberate and intended to avoid the provisions of Section 40A(3). The CIT(A) emphasized that the cash book entries showed single transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, which contradicted the assessee's claim of splitting payments.

During the tribunal hearing, the assessee reiterated their arguments, stating that the cash payments were necessary due to the nature of their business and that customers often refused cheques as they did not have bank accounts. The assessee also argued that the payments were made in pressing circumstances, such as emergencies, and thus should not attract disallowance under Section 40A(3).

The Revenue's representative countered that the assessee did not provide vouchers for cash payments on different dates and that the cash book entries showed single transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000. The representative argued that the assessee's practice of splitting amounts on bills was an attempt to defraud the revenue.

After considering both parties' submissions, the tribunal found merit in the Revenue's arguments. The tribunal noted that the cash book is a prime part of the books of account and reflects the true affairs. The tribunal observed that the assessee's practice of splitting amounts on bills to avoid Section 40A(3) was not convincing and lacked a valid explanation. The tribunal also noted that the assessee's case did not fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the disallowance of Rs. 23,22,676 under Section 40A(3). The tribunal concluded that the assessee's practice of splitting payments was a deliberate attempt to avoid disallowance and that the arguments presented by the assessee did not merit legal acceptance.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, confirming the disallowance of Rs. 23,22,676 under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal emphasized that the assessee's practice of splitting payments was deliberate and intended to circumvent the provisions of the Act, and their case did not fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. The order was pronounced on 25/08/2021 by placing the result on the notice board.

---