TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of law are proposed by the Revenue : "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed u/s 263 of the Act even though the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order without making inquiries or verification which should have been made to ascertain whether the parties to whom cash payments were made were milk producers and were covered by circumstances sated in clause(e)(ii) of Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed u/s 263 of the Act even though the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order without makin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rameshbhai in cash in the financial year 2012-2013 relevant to assessment year 2013-2014. 5. The assessee-company in its reply submitted that Rameshbhai is not a contractor but employee of the assessee company and money was paid to him for payment to labours. However, during the survey proceedings, the assessee company admitted that Rameshbhai is contractor who provided labours and no TDS was deducted on payment to Rameshbhai and it was also noticed that the assessee company has not deducted Provident Fund from payments made to said Rameshbhai, as was evident from the PF statement of assessee company and therefore, the payment of Rs. 13,41,006/- ought to have been disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 1961. 6. PCIT also furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made and the assessee accepted such disallowance and therefore, no fresh disallowance is required to be made. With regard to payment of Rs. 1,61,47,818/- made to various persons from 1.4.2012 to 22.1.2013, the assessee-company submitted that the payments are either covered by the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules or payment of Government stamp duties and fees or purchase of agriculture or dairy produce or the payment might not have been deposited to profit and loss account because the same may not be revenue expenditure or may be forming part of the disclosure made for the said period. 10. PCIT after going through the reply of the assessee held that the Assessing Officer did not make any disallowance on payment m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eligible for benefit of the Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules. In view of this, from the findings during survey that in F.Y. 2012-13, Rs. 1,82,18,581/- was paid by assessee in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/-, which was neither disputed nor the statements retracted later, and out of the said amount Rs. 1,82,18,581/-, only Rs. 20,70,763/- was allowable expenditure under section 40A(3) of the Act, read with Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Further, declaration of Rs. 15,00,000/- made for F.Y. 2012-13, is regarding irregularities in books of accounts and hence, it has no bearing on disallowance of cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, payment of Rs. 1,61,47,818/-(Rs. 1,82,18,581 - Rs. 20,70,763/-) should be disallowed by the assessing ....