Cash freight payments and delayed welfare contributions may escape disallowance where practical necessity and statutory payment rules are satisfied.

Cash freight payments made to truck drivers were treated as falling within the rule 6DD(j) exception where payment by cheque was impracticable because the drivers would not unload goods without cash, so section 40A(3) disallowance was deleted. Delayed remittance of provident fund, family provident fund and ESI contributions was considered in light of sections 43B, 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va); the provisos to section 43B were read as remedial, and sick industrial company status under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not override the payment scheme. Deduction was treated as available in principle, subject to verification of actual payment dates.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cash payments made to truck drivers for transportation charges attracted disallowance under section 40A(3) or fell within the exception for exceptional circumstances under rule 6DD(j). (ii) Whether delayed payment of provident fund, family provident fund and employees' state insurance contributions was allowable under section 43B in the light of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va), and whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 affected the allowability.

Issue (i): Whether cash payments made to truck drivers for transportation charges attracted disallowance under section 40A(3) or fell within the exception for exceptional circumstances under rule 6DD(j).

Analysis: The payments were made to truck drivers in cash for transportation of goods, and the factual setting showed that payment otherwise than in cash was impracticable because the drivers would not unload goods without cash. The guidance contained in Circular No. 220 and the consistent line of decisions on cash freight payments supported the view that such payments, when made under unavoidable business exigencies, fall within the exception contemplated by rule 6DD(j).

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40A(3) was rightly deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether delayed payment of provident fund, family provident fund and employees' state insurance contributions was allowable under section 43B in the light of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va), and whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 affected the allowability.

Analysis: Section 43B was treated as a provision requiring actual payment but its provisos were construed as remedial and intended to remove unintended hardship. The legislative history showed that the omission of the words "during the previous year" from the second proviso was meant to mitigate hardship for end-of-year statutory payments. The payment of employees' welfare contributions made during the year or before the relevant due date could not be denied merely on a rigid literal reading, and the sick company status under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not override the operation of section 43B. The matter, however, required verification of the dates of actual payment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in principle in favour of the assessee, but the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of deduction in accordance with the stated directions.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed on the cash payment issue and succeeded only to the limited extent that the welfare-contribution issue was sent back for factual verification, leaving the assessee substantially successful overall.

Ratio Decidendi: A remedial proviso to a fiscal disallowance provision must be construed reasonably to avoid unintended hardship, and cash freight payments or employee welfare contributions made under practical business constraints or in conformity with the statutory payment scheme cannot be disallowed by a purely literal reading where the governing exception or payment principle is satisfied.

---