1976 (11) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of raw material ?" The assessee manufactures shapers and castings of machines. Raw material was purchased from M/s. Ludhiana Crucible & Cupola Association on various occasions and, on as many as five occasions in the course of the accounting year 1969-70, payment was not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. It was not shown that there was any business expediency for making the payments in cash. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the payments under section 40A(3). The order of the Income-tax Officer was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was urged on behalf of the assessee that payments made for the purchase of raw material or goods was not expenditure within the mean....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch expenditure is considered by the Income-tax Officer excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made for the legitimate needs of business or profession of the assessee. Similarly, section 40A(3) empowers the Income-tax Officer to disallow as a deduction any expenditure in respect of which payment is made of any sum exceeding Rs. 2,500 otherwise than by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft, unless the payment is made under the circumstances which may be prescribed by the Rules, having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available, consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors. The object of section 40A(3) is patent and is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry intention. That is not permissible. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Kandaswami [1975] 36 STC 191, 198 (SC), construing section 7A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the Supreme Court observed : "Its main object is to plug leakage and prevent evasion of tax. In interpreting such a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile. The view taken by the High Court is repugnant to this cardinal canon of interpretation." In the case before us, there is really no need to invoke any rule of construction ....