Raw jute cash payments covered by Rule 6DD(e)(i); partial relief from section 40A(3), PF disallowance upheld

ITAT Kolkata partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It held that cash payments for purchase of raw jute from cultivators/producers fall within the exception under Rule 6DD(e)(i), as raw jute remains agricultural produce despite retting or minimal processing. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40A(3) was sustained only for purchases routed through three brokers, where payments were not made directly to farmers, and deleted for the remaining parties. Consequentially, the addition on account of sundry (bogus) creditors was deleted, since purchases and corresponding sales were accepted and only identity of farmers was doubted. However, disallowance of employees' PF contribution deposited beyond the statutory due date was upheld in view of the SC ruling in Checkmate Services.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order was pressed and required adjudication.

1.2 Whether disallowance under section 40A(3) was justified in respect of cash payments for purchase of raw jute, and whether the case fell within the exception under Rule 6DD(e)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

1.3 Whether the sundry creditors of Rs. 4,36,64,676/- arising from credit purchases of raw jute were bogus and liable to be added as income.

1.4 Whether disallowance restricted to 8% (Rs. 84,789/-) of alleged bogus purchases from a particular supplier was liable to be deleted.

1.5 Whether disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) was valid when the contribution was deposited beyond the due date under the relevant labour law, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1.1 The ground alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass the order under section 143(3) was not supported by any arguments before the Tribunal.

Conclusions

2.1.2 The ground challenging jurisdiction was treated as not pressed and dismissed.

2.2 Disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash purchases of raw jute and applicability of Rule 6DD(e)(i)

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.2.1 Section 40A(3) disallows expenditure where payment exceeding the prescribed threshold is made otherwise than by specified banking modes.

2.2.2 Rule 6DD(e)(i) provides that no disallowance under section 40A(3) shall be made where the payment is made for purchase of agricultural or forest produce to the cultivator, grower or producer of such produce.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2.3 The assessee explained that raw jute was purchased directly from farmers/growers who brought their produce to the assessee's mill premises; purchases were recorded in a register with date, name of farmer, name of village, vehicle number, quantity and amount, and payments were made in cash against tokens issued and later surrendered.

2.2.4 The statement of the General Manager (Purchase) recorded under section 131 supported the claim that: (i) a segment of purchases was made in cash directly from cultivators/growers/farmers within about 50 km of the mill; (ii) the goods were weighed and segregated at the mill premises; (iii) prices were fixed thereafter and cash tokens were issued and exchanged for cash.

2.2.5 The assessee produced party-wise purchase details, purchase register, stock register, cash book and bank book, GRNs mentioning vehicle numbers, procurement (jetty) register and copies of cash tokens, as well as a certificate from the Jute Balers' Association stating that cash purchases of raw jute from farmers at buyers' premises are a common trade practice.

2.2.6 The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority mainly objected that: (i) full addresses/identity of farmers were not proved; (ii) certain discrepancies existed between party-wise lists and ledgers; (iii) documents like stock register, GRNs, tokens and procurement register did not, in their view, prove that sellers were genuine farmers; and (iv) in the view of the first appellate authority, jute fibre sold after "retting" could not be treated as agricultural produce so as to fall within Rule 6DD(e)(i).

2.2.7 The Tribunal noted that the discrepancies pointed out (e.g., single ledger for a name appearing twice due to supplies from two locations; two separate ledgers for the same person; an arithmetical error in totalling closing balances) were satisfactorily explained and reconciled by the assessee.

2.2.8 The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not dispute that there were corresponding sales and himself accepted that there cannot be sales without purchases; thus the fact of purchases itself and their genuineness were not in substance disbelieved.

2.2.9 The Tribunal held that insisting on complete postal addresses of farmers from small villages, despite the assessee providing their names, village names and vehicle numbers, was excessive where there was no contrary evidence that such persons did not exist or had denied the transactions; the Assessing Officer had wide powers to make field enquiries but no effective rebuttal of the assessee's particulars was brought on record.

2.2.10 It was noted that no addition was made under section 69C on account of unexplained expenditure, indicating that the source and fact of purchases were not treated as fictitious.

2.2.11 On the nature of the commodity, the Tribunal held that "raw jute" remained an agricultural produce notwithstanding customary processing such as retting undertaken by cultivators to make the crop saleable; such processing does not alter the agricultural character of the produce.

2.2.12 Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the reasoning that raw jute bought by the assessee ceased to be agricultural produce and affirmed that purchases of raw jute from cultivators/growers/producers fell within Rule 6DD(e)(i).

2.2.13 However, in respect of three parties listed at serial nos. 4, 62 and 75 in the purchase list, the assessee admitted that they were not individual farmers but agents/brokers who collected raw jute from small farmers and sold it to the assessee in their own names. The Tribunal held that for these parties, the purchase was from brokers and not directly from cultivators/growers/producers, and thus the condition of Rule 6DD(e)(i) was not satisfied.

Conclusions

2.2.14 The Tribunal held that, except for purchases from the three broker/agent parties at serial nos. 4, 62 and 75, the assessee had sufficiently established that cash purchases of raw jute were from cultivators/growers of agricultural produce and were covered by the exception under Rule 6DD(e)(i).

2.2.15 Disallowance under section 40A(3) was therefore restricted only to cash payments made to the three non-farmer parties at serial no. 4 (Rs. 1,57,482/-), serial no. 62 (Rs. 1,99,642/-) and serial no. 75 (Rs. 6,62,425/-), and deleted for all other parties.

2.3 Addition on account of alleged bogus creditors (sundry creditors for purchase of raw jute)

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3.1 The sundry creditors of Rs. 4,36,64,676/- represented unpaid balances relating to purchases of raw jute from farmers on credit when cash purchase targets were already met.

2.3.2 The Assessing Officer treated these sundry creditors as bogus solely on the ground that the identity of the farmers/sellers was not established to his satisfaction.

2.3.3 The Tribunal noted that the underlying purchases and the corresponding sales were not doubted, and the Assessing Officer had himself accepted that there could not be sales without purchases.

2.3.4 Relying on the same reasoning applied in the context of section 40A(3), the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding genuineness of the transactions and the identity particulars available, and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any material to show that the sundry creditors were fictitious or non-existent.

2.3.5 It was also noted that payments against these credit purchases were stated to have been made in subsequent years, which fact was not effectively rebutted.

Conclusions

2.3.6 The addition of Rs. 4,36,64,676/- on account of alleged bogus sundry creditors was held to be unsustainable and was deleted in full.

2.4 Disallowance of 8% of alleged bogus purchases from a specific party

Interpretation and reasoning

2.4.1 The assessee challenged the confirmation by the first appellate authority of disallowance of Rs. 84,789/-, being 8% of total purchases of Rs. 10,59,861/- from a named supplier treated as involving bogus purchases.

2.4.2 Before the Tribunal, no convincing argument or substantive challenge to this specific disallowance was advanced.

Conclusions

2.4.3 In the absence of substantiated arguments, the Tribunal declined to interfere and the disallowance of Rs. 84,789/- was sustained.

2.5 Disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x)

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.5.1 The Tribunal considered the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that employees' contributions covered by section 36(1)(va) must be deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare statute, and that section 43B does not override this requirement.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.5.2 It was common ground between the parties that the issue of allowability of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF was governed by the law laid down in the above Supreme Court judgment.

2.5.3 Since the employees' contribution had been deposited beyond the statutory due date under the PF law, the deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not available, irrespective of whether payment was made before the due date of filing the return.

Conclusions

2.5.4 The disallowance of employees' contribution to PF made under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) was upheld and the ground was decided against the assessee.

---