Cash payments to Railways isn’t covered within the ambit of sec. 40A(3)

IT : Payment made to government concern in cash in excess of amount prescribed under section 40A(3) would be allowable

■■■

[2013] 39 taxmann.com 16 (Karnataka)

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

Devendrappa M. Kalal*

K.L. MANJUNATH AND A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, JJ.

IT APPEAL NO. 5018 OF 2012†

SEPTEMBER  18, 2013 

Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits [Payment to Government concern] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee a scrap dealer, purchased scrap from Railway by making payment in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 - Whether since Railway is concern of Union of India, such payment in cash had to be considered as a legal tender, and, therefore, same could not be disallowed - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]

CASE REVIEW

 

Devendrappa M. Kalal v. ITO [2012] 53 SOT 23 (URO)/23 taxmann.com 404 (Bang.)affirmed.

Y.V. Raviraj for the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

 

1. The Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA Nos.220/Bang/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2. Heard Sri Y.V Raviraj for the appellant. The respondent-assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 by order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenditure and added Rs. 73,91,380/- on the ground that the assessee has made payment in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in respect of a single transaction which is in gross violation of Section 40A(3). Aggrieved by the same the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which appeal came to be dismissed on 29-12-2011. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It was contended by the assessee that all the payments were made by him to purchase the scrap from the Railways, which is run by the Union of India. According to the assessee, in respect of the purchase of scrap made from the Railway, the payments were made and any payment made to the Government is required to be considered as a legal tender and the question of adding the same by deleting from the business expenses is an error committed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. Challenging the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.

3. Having heard Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the revenue we do not see any substantial question of law arises in this appeal for the following reasons.

4. The revenue is not disputing that the assessee is a scrap dealer purchasing scrap from the Railways. Admittedly Railways is a concern of the Union of India. If any cash is paid towards purchase of the scrap the same cannot be disputed by the revenue since such payment has to be considered as a legal tender. If the revenue is of the opinion that no such payment has been made to the Railways, we could have considered their grievance. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.