High Court Of Allahabad
Satish Chandra, K.C. Agrawal, J.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax : Appellant
Versus
Nathimal Badri Prasad And Anr. : Respondent
Income-tax Reference 515 of 1974
Decided On : Mar 09, 1978
expenses - raw material purchases - The court held that the word 'expenditure' in Section 40A of the I.T. Act includes payments made for purchases of stock-in-trade and such payments could be disallowed if made in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500. The court also found that Rule 6DD(j) was not addressed by the Tribunal and needed further consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether expenses incurred by an assessee in purchasing raw material for stock-in-trade were covered within the meaning of the expression 'expenditure' in Section 40A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the word 'expenditure' in Section 40A includes payments made for purchases of stock-in-trade and such payments could be disallowed if made in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500. The court also found that Rule 6DD(j) was not addressed by the Tribunal and needed further consideration.
Issues: Interpretation of the term 'expenditure' in Section 40A of the I.T. Act, applicability of Rule 6DD(j)
Ratio Decidendi: The word 'expenditure' in Section 40A includes payments made for purchases of stock-in-trade and such payments could be disallowed if made in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500. Rule 6DD(j) was not addressed by the Tribunal and needed further consideration.
Final Decision: The court answered the question in favor of the department and against the assessee. The second question was returned unanswered for further consideration by the Tribunal. The Commissioner was entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 200.
Satish Chandra, J.
1. THE question of law raised in this reference is whether expenses incurred by an assessee in purchasing its raw material for stock-in-trade for carrying on the manufactaring or trading business is covered within the meaning of the expression "expenditure" occurring in Section 40A of the I.T. Act, 1961. THE Tribunal held that they were outside the purview of this expression and hence Section 40A was not applicable with the result that the amount of such purchases could hot be added back.
2. THIS court in U.P. Hardware Store v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 664 (All) has taken a different view." It was held that there was no justification for accepting the plea that the words "expenditure" used in Section 40A(3) should be restricted to overhead expenses enumerated under Sections 30 to 43A of the Act, The word "expenditure" is of wide import. It would cover payments made for purchases of stock-in-trade also and such payments could be disallowed if they are made in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500. THIS decision is binding on us. In view of this decision, we answer this question in favour of the department and against the assessee.
The second question referred to us is whether the payments made for purchases were allowable in view of Rule 6DD(j). We find that the Tribunal has not addressed itself to the question whether any individual payment for purchases was within or without the ambit of this rule because it took the view that the rule was itself ultra vires of Section 40A. In the view we have taken, the rule will be intra vires and, therefore, the question whether the new purchases were or were not covered by Rule 6DD will arise now. The Tribunal will address itself to this question on merits, after receiving back our answer. In this view, question No. 2 is returned unanswered.
3. THE Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (Rupees two hundred) only.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.