MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO , WARD-3, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 833/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 February 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that KSEB is a state government undertaking and payments made to it fall under the exceptions enumerated in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 40A(3) was not justified and was deleted.

What were the facts?

The appellant, a partnership firm, filed its return for AY 2015-16. The AO completed assessment under Section 143(3) and disallowed Rs. 13,06,452/- under Section 40A(3) for cash payment made to KSEB for electricity charges. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether cash payments made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), a state government undertaking, for electricity charges are subject to disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, given the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 30.01.2025Pronounced: 19.02.2025

O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 29.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of food items. The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed on 22.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,93,910/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Mina Wood Industries Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 19.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 15,00,360/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 13,06,452/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act being the amount paid in cash to the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) towards electricity charges.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

5.

When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite due service of notice of hearing. The ground of appeal is that the payment is made a Kerala Government undertaking, therefore, falls with the exceptions emanating under rule. 6DD of the I.T. Rules. Therefore, no addition is called for.

6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR opposed the contentions of the appellant.

7. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the is u/s. 40A(3) of the Act being payment made to KSEB in cash towards electricity charges. The provisions of section 40A(3) is not absolute. Provisions of section 40 A(3) cannot be read in isolation but should be read with Mina Wood Industries the provisions of rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules. Provisions of rule 6DD enumerates certain exceptions for invoking provisions of section 40A(3). Clause (b) of rule 6DD provides that where the payment is made to the government no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is to be made. In the present case, the payment is made to state government undertaking, i.e. KSEB, which is considered to be a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the cash payment made to the state government undertaking cannot be disallowed. In this regard reliance can be placed to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. SRC Aviation P. Ltd. [2013] 37 taxamann.com 308 (Delhi) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 475 (Guj).

8. Since the payment in question falls under the exceptions enumerated under rule 6DD, we delete the addition.

9. In the result, appeal of the appellant stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →