SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Raj) 542

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kishan Mal Lodha, Sobhag Mal Jain, JJ.
Commissioner of Income-Tax - Appellant
Versus
Fakri Automobiles - Respondent
D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 5 of 1979.
Decided On : 23-07-1985

Payments made for purchase of stock-in-trade fall within the meaning of 'expenditure' under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Section 40A(3) - Expenditure - Purchase of stock-in-trade - Whether payments made for purchase of stock-in-trade fall within the meaning of 'expenditure' under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a firm dealing in petrol, diesel, kerosene, and motor parts, recorded a purchase of 18,000 liters of diesel worth Rs. 14,026 on July 4, 1970, in its cash book and stock register. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal held that the purchase was not genuine and added the amount back to the assessee's income as 'income from undisclosed sources' under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the word 'expenditure' in Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is of wide import and includes the price paid for the purpose of stock-in-trade and/or raw materials, etc. Such payments fall within the sweep of Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the purchase of diesel worth Rs. 14,026 recorded on July 4, 1970, was an 'expenditure' within the meaning of Section 40A(3) of the Act.

Issues: Whether payments made for purchase of stock-in-trade fall within the meaning of 'expenditure' under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several High Court decisions which held that the word 'expenditure' in Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not confined to expenditure that could be claimed as a deduction under Section 37 but refers to any payment made by the assessee and taken into account in computing the total income under the provisions of the Act. The court also noted that payments made for purchases are expenditure within the meaning of Section 40A(3) of the Act.

Final Decision: The court answered question No. 3 in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, holding that the purchase of diesel worth Rs. 14,026 recorded on July 4, 1970, was an 'expenditure' within the meaning of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court did not answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 as it considered them inconsequential in light of its answer to question No. 3.

JUDGMENT

1. - In compliance with the order dated September 12, 1978, of this court passed in D.B. Income-tax Case No. 2 of 1976, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (" the Tribunal " herein), has referred the following three questions for our opinion :

"(1). Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had any material to arrive at its conclusion that diesel of Rs. 14,026 (18,000 litres) recorded on July 4, 1970, in the cash book and the stock register of the applicant-firm represented the suppressed stock ?

(2). Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was, at any rate, justified in holding that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 14,026 was liable to be included in the total income of the applicant-firm as ' income from undisclosed sources ' ?

(3). Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the purchases of diesel worth Rs. 14,026 recorded on July 4, 1970, was ' an expenditure ' within the meaning of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "
The assessee-petitioner carries on business in petrol, diesel, kerosene, motor parts, etc., at Banswara. The accounting year of the assessee-firm for the assessment year ended on October 30, 1970. On July 4, 1970, the assessee debited in its cash book a sum of Rs. 14,026 against the purchase price of 18,000 litres of diesel. The quantity of diesel purchased recorded in the stock register on July 4, 1970, is as under :

"1,500, 1,000, 2,100, 1,500, 2,100, 1,800, 1,500, 2,100, 2,100, 1,500 = 18,000 litres.

2. In the cash book, the assessee made an entry in respect of purchase of diesel in one lump sum. The assessee did not obtain purchase voucher. However, Kalimuddin, partner of the assessee-firm, submitted an affidavit to the effect that during Samvat year 2026, the firm had purchased 18,000 litres diesel worth Rs. 14,025.75 from various private parties to meet the temporary scarcity in the area. According to the assessee-firm, the said purchases were recorded in one lump sum in the books of account on July 4, 1970. The case of the assessee-firm was that no single purchase of diesel so recorded was of the value of Rs. 2,500 or more. The Income-tax Officer by his order dated December 15, 1972, held that the assessee was in possession of diesel amounting in value of Rs. 14,026 on July 4, 1970, whose source of acquisition remained not explained. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) (for short "the Act" herein), and considered the payment to be an expenditure. It was taken as inadmissible under the aforesaid provision. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer, vide his order dated April 30, 1983. He opined that no private party can deal in diesel unless licensed to do so. If the purchases were from the licensed and established dealers, there is no reason why the assessee should not get purchases verified from them. He did not place reliance on the " self-created evidence " and it was taken that it did not prove the assertion of the assessee. He also maintained the applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee went up in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated October 20, 1974, observed as under :

" We are, therefore, of the opinion that the purchase in question on July 4, 1970, has not been proved. The inference of the Income-tax Officer that the stock of 18,000 liters of diesel sold is the suppressed stock in the circumstances is correct. It could not have been acquired in one day. From the evidence on record and having regard to human probabilities, it is also clear to us that it must have been bulit up gradually. The payment of Rs. 14,026 from the cash book on July 4, 1970, would not be the source of this gradual acquisition of this stock, for it is the alleged outgoing of cash against the alleged purchases on July 4, 1970 alone. Once the purchases are shown not to have been there on July


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top