ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

Regarding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the assessee submits that it was, under exceptional circumstances, that payments had to be made by way of cash. The assessee pleaded that it had taken up civil works on contract from U.K.Ispat and that the location of the site was at a village by name “Shri Chandanpur”, where the “Jadab community” sold land to the company and were given jobs of supplying various materials to the site of the company and that the assessee was not in position to deny the supply work for them. It was submitted that these people complete the job and come to the office of the assessee and demand for payment in cash. When the assessee wanted to issue account payee cheques it was told that, they had no bank account and would accept only cash. The assessee claimed that it was forced to make cash payments to 2

The assessing officer records that the assessee had also received cash and had paid cash for this expenditure. The issue that is to be adjudicated is whether the payments in question, the genuineness of which is not in doubt and which were made in cash, were made under exceptional circumstances or not.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the provisions of section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD and in particular, Rule 6DD(j), as existed at relevant point in time, has held as under:-

In our opinion there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together. it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction on the assessee in his trading activities. Section 40A(3) only empowers the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section 40A(J) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. The genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed in section 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee. It is also open to the assessee to identify the person who has received the cash payment Rule 6DD provides that an assessee can be exempted from the requirement of payment by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft in the circumstances specified under the rule. It will be clear from the provisions of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate the business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black- money for business transactions. - Mudiam Oil Co. v. ITO [1973]92 ITR 519 (AP). If the payment is made by a crossed cheque on a bank or a crossed bank draft then it will be easier to ascertain/ when deduction is claimed, whether the payment was genuine and whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. In interpreting a taxing statute the Court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black-money which is under circulation in our country. Any restraint intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black-money should not be regarded as curtailing the freedom of trade or business.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has therefore upheld the constitutional validity of section 40A(3) of the Act and has held that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities and restraint so provided are only intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black money and the same should not be regarded as curtailing the freedom of trade or business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has thus laid great emphasis on the intention behind introduction of these provisions and it would 4

The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the provisions of section 40A(3) as existed at relevant point in time which talks about considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors and Rule 6DD(j) which provides for the exceptional or unavoidable circumstances and the fact that the payment in the manner aforesaid was not practical or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee and furnishing the necessary evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as to the genuineness of the payments and the identity of the payee has held that:

Here, it is relevant to note that there has been no change in the provisions of section 40A(3) in so far as considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors are concerned, as existed at relevant point in time and as considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of section 40A(3) as exist now and relevant for the impugned assessment year i.e. AY 2013-14. However, Rule 6DD(j) has been amended and by notification dated 10.10.2008, it now provides for an exception only in a scenario where the payment was required to be made on a day on which banks were closed either on account of holiday or strike. A question which arises for consideration is whether the legal proposition so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors has been diluted by way of delegated legislation in form of Income Tax Rules when the parent legislation in form of section 40A(3) to which such delegated legislation is subservient has been retained in its entirety. Alternatively, can it be said that what has been prescribed as exceptional circumstances in Rule 6DD as amended are exhaustive enough and which visualizes all kinds and nature of business expediency in all possible situations.

If we look at the legislative history of section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD, we find that initially, section 40A(3) provides for disallowance of 100% of the expenditure unless the matter falls under exception as provided in Rule 6DD(j) Later on, section 40A(3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section 40A(3) was increased from 20% to 100%, however, Rule 6DD(j) was not reintroduced in original form to provide for exceptional and unavoidable circumstances rather it was restricted to payment by way of salary to 5

We do not believe that by virtue of these amendments, the legal proposition so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court regarding consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors has been diluted in any way. At the same time, we also believe that Rule 6DD as amended are not exhaustive enough and which visualizes all kinds and nature of business expediency in all possible situations and it is for the appropriate authority to examine and provide for a mechanism as originally envisaged which provides for exceptional or unavoidable circumstances to the satisfaction of the Assessing officer whereby genuine business expenditure should not suffer disallowance.

Further, the Courts have held from time to time that the Rules must be interpreted in a manner so as to advance and not to frustrate the object of the legislature. The intention of the legislature is manifestly clear and which is to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black money and to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. And Section 40A(3) continues to provide that no disallowance shall be made in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed having regard to the nature and extent of the banking facilities available, consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors. In our view, given that there has been no change in the provisions of section 40A(3) in so far as consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are concerned, the same continues to be relevant factors which needs to be considered and taken into account while determining the exceptions to the disallowance as contemplated under section 40A(3) of the Act so long as the intention of the legislature is not violated. We find that our said view find resonance in decisions of various authorities, which we have discussed below and thus seems fortified by the said decisions.

We refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO (supra), where the facts of case were that the assessee had made certain cash payments towards purchase of scooter/mopeds which exceeded Rs. 10,000/- in each case to the principal agent instead of making payment through the cross cheques or bank draft. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40A(3) and held that they were no exceptional circumstances falling under rule 6DD which could avoid consequences of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) held that such exceptional circumstances did exist. However, the findings of the Id. CIT(A) were reversed by the Tribunal and the matter came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court.

The Hon'ble High Court observed that the principal reason which weighed with the Tribunal in discarding the explanation furnished by the assessee was that the case of the assessee did not fall in any of the clauses enumerated in the circular issued by the CBDT about the explanatory note appended to clause (j) was to operate as it was existing at the relevant time and enumerated circumstances in the circular was 6

It was accordingly held by the Hon'ble High Court that it is the relevant consideration for the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act that before invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) in light of Rule 600 as clarified by circular of the CBDT that whether the failure on the part of the assessee in adhering to requirement of provisions of section 40A(3) has any such nexus which defeats the object of provision so as to invite such a consequence. This is particularly so, because the consequence provided u/s 40A(3) for failure to make payments through bank is not absolute in terms nor automatic but exceptions have been provided and leverage has been left for little flexing by making a general provision in the form of clause (j) in rule 6DD. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court refers to the clause 6DD(j) and the circular dated 31st May, 1977 issued by the Board in the context of what shall constitute exceptional and unavoidable circumstances within the meaning of section Clause (j). The Hon'ble High Court observed that the circular in paragraph 5 gives a clear indication that rule 6DD(j) has to be liberally construed and ordinarily where the genuineness of the transaction and the payment and the identity of the receiver is established, the requirement of rule 6DD(j) must be deemed to have been satisfied. The Hon'ble High Court observed that apparently section 40A(3) was intended to penalize the tax evader and not the honest transactions and that is why after framing of rule 6DD(j), the Board stepped in by issuing the aforesaid circular and this clarification, in our opinion, is in conformity with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in CTO vs. Swastik Roadways reported in [2004] 2 RC 539; [2004] 3 SCC 640.

The legal proposition that arises from the above decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is that the consequences, which were to befall on account of non- observation of sub-section (3) of section 40A must have nexus to the failure of such object. Therefore the genuineness of the transactions and it being free from vice of any

In case of Anupam Tele Services v. Income Tax Officer, the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the facts of the case were that the assessee who is involved in the business of distribution mobile and recharge vouchers of Tata Tele Services Ltd had made payment of Rs. 33,10,194/- to Tata Tele Services Ltd., by cash on different dates. The assessee had made such payment through account payee cheques till 22nd Aug, 2005, when a circular was issued by Tata Tele Services Ltd., requiring the appellant to deposit cash at the company's office at Surat. In that factual background, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-

In case of M/s Ajmer Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT (supra), a similar issue has come up before the Co-ordinate Bench and speaking through one of us, it was held as under:

In case of Gurdas Garg vs. CIT(A), Bathinda (supra), the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the facts of the case are pari materia to the instant case and the ratio of the said decision clearly applies in the instant case. In that case, the facts of the case were that the assessee was engaged in trading in properties and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that there are transactions where the payments have been made in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in cash which were disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO (Supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO (Supra). The High Court further observed that the Id. CIT(A) has given a finding that the identity of the payee i.e. vendors in respect of land purchase by the appellant was established, the sale deeds were produced, the genuineness thereof was accepted' and the amount paid in respect of each of these agreement was satisfied before the Stamp Registration Authority and the transactions were held to be genuine and the bar against the grant of deductions u/s 40A(3) of the Act was not attracted, The Hon'ble High Court further observed that the Tribunal did not upset these findings including as to the genuineness and the correctness of the transactions and it is also important to note that the correctness of the transactions and it is also important to note that the Tribunal noted the contention on behalf of the appellant that there was a boom in the real estate market and therefore it was necessary, therefore, to conclude the transactions at the earliest and not to postpone them; that the appellant did not know the vendors and obviously therefore, insisted for payment in cash and that as a result thereof, payments had to be made immediately to settle the deals. The Tribunal did not doubt this case. The Tribunal, however, held that the claim for deduction was not 10

The Co-ordinate Bench in case of M/s Dhuri Wine vs DCIT (ITA No. 1155/chd/2013 & others dated 09.10.2015) has held that the proposition so laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Gurdas Garg (supra) is quite unambiguous to the effect that even if the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the clauses of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act can be dispensed with if the assessee is able to prove the business expediency because of which it has to make the cash payments, the genuineness of the transactions have also to be verified.

The Co-ordinate Bench in case of Rakesh Kumar vs. ACIT (ITA No. 102(Asr)/2014 dated 09.03.2016) relying on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Gurdas Garg (supra) has held that the genuineness of the payment has not been doubted as the Assessing Officer himself has held that sale deeds of properties were registered with the Revenue department of the Government. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the payment for purchase of land was allowed.

We further note that in case of M/s ACE India Abodes limited (DB Appeal No. 45/2012 dated 11.09.2017), a similar issue has come up before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court regarding payment for purchase of land from various agriculturist for which the assessee has paid consideration in cash and shown the land as its stock-in- trade. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court referring to the intent behind introduction of section 40A(3) and catena of decisions right from Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh, Smt. Harshila Chordia, Gurdas Garg, Anupam Tele Services referred supra has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the department.

We find force in the contentions so raised by the ld AR. The transactions have been executed by the assessee within a span of one and half month and there are transactions where the payment has been made through cheque and there are transactions where the payment has been made through cash. The said contentions are supported by the fact that on the same day, there are cash and cheque payments as evidenced from the details of the transactions appearing at page 7 and 8 of the assessment order. It is therefore clear that the assessee was having sufficient bank balance and only at the insistence of the specific sellers, the assessee has withdrawn cash and made payment to them and wherever, the seller has insisted on cheque payments, the payment has been made by cheque. This makes out a case that the assessee has business expediency under which it has to make payment in cash and in absence of which, the transactions could not be completed. The second proviso to section 40A(3) refers to "the nature and extent of banking facility, consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors" which 11 12 S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 means that the object of the legislature is not to make disallowance of cash payments which have to be compulsory made by the assessee on account of business expediency. Further, the source of cash payments is clearly identifiable in form of the withdrawals from the assessee's bank accounts and the said details were submitted before the lower authorities and have not been disputed by them. It is not the case of the Revenue either that unaccounted or undisclosed income, of the assessee has been utilized in making the cash payments.

In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the legal proposition laid down by the various Courts and Coordinate Benches referred supra, we are of the view that the identity of the persons from whom the various plots of land have been purchased and source of cash payments as withdrawals from the assessee's bank account has been established. The genuineness of the transaction has been established as evidenced by the registered sale deeds and lastly, the test of business expediency has been met in the instant case. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Harshila Chordia (supra), the consequences, which were to befall on account of non-observation of sub-section (3) of section 40A must have nexus to the failure of such object. Therefore the genuineness of the transactions and it being free from vice of any device of evasion of tax is relevant consideration. The intent and the purpose for which section 40A(3) has been brought on the statute books has been clearly satisfied in the instant case. Therefore, being a case of genuine business transaction, no disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act”.

We find that in the instant case also, it is not in dispute that the payments were made by the assessee to the brokers from whom the trucks were hired on payment, and in turn was required to make the payment in cash to the truck- drivers in each. As per Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus-II Page no.15, an agent is: i) person acting for another in business etc. ii) person or thing producing effect

The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Crescent Export Syndicate in of 2008 judgment dated 30.07.2008 held as follows: “It also appears that the purchases have been held to be genuine by the learned CIT(Appeal) but the learned CIT(A) has invoked Section 40A(3) for payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- since it is not made by crossed cheque or bank draft but by hearer cheques 14

Ground no. 4 is on the disallowance of puja expenses of Rs. 36,542/-. The assessee submits that the expenditure relates to Viswakarma Puja. It was submitted that these expenses were incidental to business and customary in nature. We find no reason for the AO to disallow the expenses, hence we allow the same. Accordingly, ground no. 4 is allowed.

Ground no. 5 is dismissed as it relates to ad hoc disallowance of telephone charges and general expenses and as the assessee could not dispute the factual findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we dismiss this ground.

Ground no. 6 is also dismissed as interest of TDS his income.

Ground no. 7 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.

Now we take up revenue appeal in Ground no. 1 is against the deletion an amount of Rs. 1,73,600/- disallowed u/s 40A(ia) of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by holding that at para 4.6.5 as held that the payments made to Shri Santana Das, Prasanta Ghosh, S. Banerjee was not for expenses and also not towards credit us as the expenditures were claimed to debit in the profit and loss account and hold that no disallowance can be made. The balance disallowance was upheld on the ground that, the existence of circumstances warranting payments in cash was not proved by the assessee. We find no infirmity in this order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground no.1 is dismissed.

Coming to ground no. 2 we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has at para 6.7.3 held as follows: “6.7.3. I have perused the remand report and the submission of the appellant. In this case perusal of facts shows that the A.O. has found that “the assessee had raised bills amounting to Rs.33,48,887/- during the financial year 2004-05 to 2006-07. He also submitted letter of Nilkanth Ferro Limited dated 24.03.2014 wherein the same details were found. The· A/R of the assessee was asked regarding the reason of difference between amount shown by him with supporting documents (Rs. 33,48,887/-) and addition made by the then A.O (Rs. 31,23,870.88/- )." The appellant has argued on this issue that prior period expenses have been confirmed by the concern M/s Nilkanth Ferro Limited. The only issue remains for difference of Rs. 2,25,016/- the claim of the appellant against prior period adjustment is of Rs. 31,23,870/- which is lower than the claim made and confirmed by the third party it is also the fact that amount of Rs. 33,48,887/- has been treated as income by the appellant date wise and hence it has been reversed by the appellant, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts the eligible 16

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.