TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The petitioner is carrying on his business in the name and style of "M/s.Madheena Traders". He had filed his return of income for the said assessment year namely 2012-13 on 30.10.2012 admitting total income of Rs. 6,25,210/-. Whileso, the jurisdictional assessing officer selected his case for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act and passed an order on 19.03.2015 determining his total income as Rs. 21,25,210/-. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the said scrutiny assessment order and it had become final. 3.The petitioner is having transactions with a number of persons, one of them being M/s.V.V.D & Sons Private Limited, Tuticorin. The business premises of the said entity were searched on 17.11.2015. Since the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0A(3). However, the Section 40A(3) is to be applied by taking the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD. The Rule 6 DD is about cases and circumstances in which a payment or aggregate of payments exceeding twenty thousand rupees may be made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft. The case of the assessee is that the payment through self cheques have been made to agents and these agents have made payments on behalf of the appellant to the farmers and the case of the assessee is covered under the exemption provided in Rule 6DD(k) that states that "where the payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Consequently, we find no merits in this appeal and the question of law is answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the tax case appeal is dismissed". (2013)37 taxmann.com422(Madras). In the above Judgment though the rule referred is 6DD(i) which is an inadvertent mistake however the matter pertains to rule 6DD(k) only. 10.In view of the facts in the present case and also in view of the jurisdictional Judgment on a similar issue the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable as the appellant is covered by the protection offered by the rule 6DD(k). Hence, the disallowance made by the AO is required to be deleted." 4.The Department, aggrieved by the said deletion made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his agents only through banking channels. The petitioner was the habit of issuing self cheques to the agents who present the same before the various bank account maintained by the petitioner and encash them and thereafter, pay the agriculturists in cash directly. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that such payments would fall under Rule 6DD(k) and therefore, deduction has to be necessarily allowed for such expenditure. This contention was specifically accepted by the appellate authority also in his order dated 29.11.2018. He would further point out that all the materials, about which the assessing officer is now feigning ignorance, were very much available before him during the earlier proceedings. The petitioner h....