Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee had made cash payments of Rs. 48,66,000/- which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities upheld this disallowance. The assessee contended that the payments were genuine and made to GST-registered dealers.
Held
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to prove the genuineness of the impugned business expenditure. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether cash payments made for business expenditure, even if genuine and to registered dealers, are to be disallowed under Section 40A(3) solely due to non-compliance with Rule 6DD.
Sections Cited
40A(3), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Vivek Garg, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC/ B-141, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar, Income Tax Officer, West Delhi, New Delhi-110059 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BTGPG0010A Assessee by: Sh. Abhishek Jain, CA & Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073459244(1) dated 19.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It is noticed during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have invoked section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.48,66,000/- in the assessee’s hands thereby rejecting his claim of having made cash payments to various dealers and suppliers in his regular business activity, in assessment order dated 10.04.2021 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Vivek Garg 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement submissions. The assessee has filed his detailed paper book running into 129 pages inter alia comprising of the entire case record before the learned lower authorities. His case accordingly is that the impugned payments are overwhelming genuine ones wherein the corresponding recipients of cash sums involved herein have been duly registered under GST law who had offered handsome discount leading to the cash payments in question. Learned department representative quotes Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) that in such an instance, the aim and objective of introduction of the impugned statutory provision could not be altogether ignored which was to curs the practice of ploughing of unaccounted money in the system. The assessee on the other hand quotes Anupam Tele Service Vs. ITO (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj.) that such an overwhelming genuine business expenditure could indeed be allowed even it is not covered under rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules prescribing various exigencies in cash payments representing business expenditure. Learned counsel lastly states that the assessee is very much ready to prove his genuineness of the impugned business expenditure forming subject matter of section 40A(3) disallowance herein if afforded one more effective innings before the Assessing Officer. It is thus Vivek Garg deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for it’s afresh adjudication as per law subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.