Commissioner of Income Tax vs Parle Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

Following question is proposed for admission in this appeal.

Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act holding the same to be covered by Rule 6DD, for an amount of Rs. 4,75,000?

While confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Tribunal has observed in paragraph 5 as under:

We have heard rival submissions and perused material available on record. As facts are similar in all the cases, it has not been disputed that village Vanivali does not have banking facility and consequently, neither the assessee nor supplier has any banking accounts, payments are otherwise held to be genuine. In our considered view, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in holding that payments made by the assessee is covered by exceptional circumstances as prescribed by Rule 6DD(j) and as circulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by the above circular, we uphold his order.

Whether there was compelling reasons to make payment in cash or not is basically a question of fact. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, both have concurrently found that there were no banking facilities for making the payment by way of cheque.

Considering the concurrent finding, we dismiss the appeal at the admission stage.