Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (3) TMI 1118 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 40A(3) - deduction of payments exceeding permisiable limits - appellant-company avers that payments were made at villages which did not have banking facilities - as per revenue most of the receipts the place of payment has been mentioned as Tirunelveli which is a District headquarter in the State of Tamil Nadu - HELD THAT:- Normally, illiterate poor farmers would insist on cash payments, especially when such payments involve huge amounts, at the place of their residence for the simple reason that they would like to avoid the risk of receiving cash at the town where the sale is to be registered and which may be far away from the village and such cash has to be carried back by them to the village. It is common knowledge that the seller has to confirm before the Sub-Registrar that full payment has been received by him. At the same time the Sub-Registrar satisfies himself about the identity of the seller to ensure that the payment has been made to the right person. For the sake of convenience, in the receipt the place is mentioned as the town where the document is registered. The AO has not made any effort to examine any of the sellers to verify as to whether the payments were received at the villages or at the town. Considering the entire facts we are inclined to accept the proposition that the payments were made at villages where banking facilities did not exist. In the present case, even if it is assumed that the payment was made at the District headquarter, the admitted position is that the sellers did not have any bank accounts at such town and they did not reside or carry on any business or farming activity at such town. The AO and the learned CIT(A) have observed that the appellant-company could have opened bank accounts at such town in the name of the sellers. In our view, it would be too much to expect that the appellant-company would be able to compel the villagers to open bank accounts at the town which ultimately they will not be able to operate as they do not reside at such town. If such a myopic view is taken regarding the interpretation of r. 6DD(h), in our view, the very object of the legislature would be frustrated. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the payees and the genuineness of the land transactions in respect of which payments have been made. Rule 6DD(h) must be interpreted keeping in view this object and purpose. It is further seen that cash payments to the extent of ₹ 20,19,208 in respect of 187 transactions are less than ₹ 20,000 per transaction and therefore such payments would be outside of the purview of s. 40A(3). Decided in favour of assessee.
|