SHRI.ABDULWAHAB ABDULRAZAK MULLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/103355/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC02001792201804 July 2018Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, reserving liberty for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Appellate Authority. The court noted that the petitioner was already before the appellate authority and should raise their arguments there.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of their pending appeal by properly considering Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner also wanted the appellate authority to appreciate a previous ITAT finding regarding cash payments for agricultural produce.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellate authority should be directed to consider specific provisions of the Income Tax Act and previous tribunal findings in a pending appeal. The main issue revolves around the disallowability of cash payments under Section 40A(3) and exceptions under Rule 6DD.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

WRIT PETITION NO.103355 OF 2018 (T-IT) BETWEEN

SHRI.ABDULWAHAB ABDULRAZAK MULLA AGE: 58, R/O.C-10, APMC YARD, HUBBALLI-560025, PROPRIETOR: MULLA TRADERS, C-10, APMC YARD, HUBBALLI-560025, PAN:ABGPA4635A.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MANOJ D. PUKALE & SRI H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), ROOM NO.102, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025: EMAIL:HUBLI.ITO1.1@INCOME TAX.GOV.IN

2.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROOM NO.209, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025: EMAIL:hubli.cit.apl@incometax.gov.in TEL:2322260. ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

2 THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO DISPOSE THE PENDING APPEAL BY PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT WHERE ONLY CASH PAYMENTS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IS DISALLOWABLE AND OTHERWISE NOT APPLICABLE AS URGED IN VIDE ANNEXURE-'F' DATED:25.01.2018 AT GROUND NO.9 RELATING TO PENDING APPEAL BEFORE SAID 2ND RESPONDENT IN ITA NO.98/CIT(A)/HBL/2017-18; AND DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO APPRECIATE THE FINDING OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1146/BANG/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-'E' DATED;20.04.2016 (AT PAGE NO.74) THAT IMPUGNED CASH PAYMENTS ARE TO AGENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH IS IN TERMS OF RULE 6DD(K) AND DOES NOT REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF THE FACT THAT IT IS FINALLY DISBURSED TO AGRICULTURIST/FARMER IN TERMS OF RULE 6DD(E) OF THE IT RULES.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions that are available to him under Section 40A(3) of the Income-Tax Act and also Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and on Annexure-M being Circular dated 05.03.1970 along with

3 Press Note dated 02.05.1969, submission is placed on record. 2. Learned standing counsel for the respondent- department submits that when the petitioner is already before the Appellate Authority, he could raise whatever contentions he has both on facts as well as in law before the said authority and that this Court may not intervene in the matter at this stage.

3.

In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions that he has, on facts and in law, including the contentions that he has, as referred to above, before the Appellate Authority. It is needless to observe that if any of the aforesaid contentions are raised by the petitioner herein the same shall be considered in accordance with law and a speaking order be passed thereon.

Sd/- JUDGE Kms

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 →