TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to a person in a day” was inserted, therefore, same in our opinion being not retrospective in nature cannot be applicable to assessment year 2006-07, i.e. year for which the assessee is in appeal before us - in favour of assessee. - ITA NO.214/PN/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2012 - Shri Shailender Kumar Yadav, And Shri R.K. Panda, JJ. Appellant by : Sri P.S. Shingte Respondent by : Sri Rajiv Jain ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22-12- 2010 of the CIT(A)-II, Pune relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. In Ground of appeal No. 1 the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 8,26,460/- made by the AO u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of various transactions on a particular day. It was submitted that since the monetary limit was not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in a particular transaction, therefore, no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) should be made. For this proposition, the assessee relied on the following decisions : 1. CIT Vs. Kithari Sanitation Tile (P) Ltd., (2006) 282 ITR 117 (Mad.). 2. CIT Vs. Triveni Prasad Pannalala (1997) 94 Taxmann 381 (M.P.) 3. CIT Vs. Aloo Supply Co. (1980) 121 ITR 680 (Orissa). 5. It was further submitted that there was insistence by the supplier M/s. Deepak Traders from whom the majority of liquor was purchased and since it was the major supplier the assessee did not have any option but to comply with this insistence. Therefore, the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. While doing so, he held that provisions of Rule 6DD (j) of the I.T.Rules were omitted w.e.f. 25-07-1995 and new Rule 6DD came w.e.f.1-12-1995 and the present Rule 6DD(j) do not provide for the exceptional circumstances for payments as claimed by the assessee. So far as the issue relating to multiple cash payments to same party on a single day he held that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs. Dalip Chand and Sons (supra) the AO was justified in making the disallowance. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee referring to the following decisions submitted that provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. The only dispute in the impugned ground is regarding disallowance u/s. 40A(3) in a case where multiple cash payments are made to same party on a single day. We find provisions of section 40A(3) after the amendment by the Finance Act 2008 read as under : (3) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure . 9.1. We find prior to the amendment the provisions of section 40A(3) was as under : (3)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure incurs any expenditure in respect of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT Vs. Triveniprasad Pannalal [1997] 228 ITR 680(Mad). Identical view has been taken in CIT Vs. Kothari Sanitation and Tiles P. Ltd., [2006] 282 ITR 117 (Mad.) It was further pointed out that similar view was taken by the Orissa High Court in CIT Vs. Aloo Supply Co. [1980] 121 ITR 680. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below (head note) : The word sum has no statutory definition and must have the common parlance meaning. While legislating, Parliament tries to convey its intention through express words. It is one of the well settled rules of interpretation that where a word used in a statute carries more than one meaning, that meaning which makes the provision workable and is nearest to the legislative intention, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance Act 2008 w.e.f. 01-04-2009 wherein the words aggregate of payments made to a person in a day was inserted, therefore, same in our opinion being not retrospective in nature cannot be applicable to assessment year 2006-07, i.e. year for which the assessee is in appeal before us. So far as the reliance of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Dalip Chand and Sons (Supra), we find there are also various favourable decisions in favour of the assessee. It is the settled proposition of law that when conflicting decisions are there, the decision which is favourable to the assessee has to be applied (Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products reported in 88 ITR 192). In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
