TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... freight from the assessee - The reason why they collected cash was that they do not have any bank in that place like Virudhanagar - The payers were not in a position to furnish the affidavit that the lorry payments had already been recorded in their books of accounts and they were assessed to tax before their respective Assessing Officer - The assessee's only claim before the authorities was that the driver acted in dual capacity, for which there is no evidence - Being pure question of fact without any material to substantiate the case of the assessee - Decided against assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.728 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And T. S. Sivagnanam,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. S. Jayakumar JUDG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing, the assessee filed affidavits from seven of the lorry owners out of 20 transporters, informing that they collected the lorry freight in cash through the driver of the lorry concerned, in which the goods were transported. The assessee contended that the cash payments for goods and services were made through agents viz., the lorry drivers, hence, cash payment for lorry freight paid to the lorry drivers cannot be disallowed under Section 40(A)(3) read with Rule 6DD(k) of the Income tax Rules, 1962. The assessee further contended that it had paid the charges to the driver, who acted as their agent, who, in turn would hand over the cash to the transport operator; thus, the assessee claimed that there was no case of levying penalty. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. Aggrieved by this, the present Tax Case (Appeal) filed seeking admission. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the transactions were genuine one and that a person can act in multiple capacity and the relationship of each person vis-a-vis each transaction has to be given due weightage. He placed reliance on the decision reported in (2013) 259 CTR (Delhi) 15 (R.C.Goel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) and contended that there could not be a technical and narrow interpretation of Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules, but can be extended to the benefit of the assessee and that the exigencies of the business deserved to be considered in this case. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort dated 27.07.2011 from the Assessing Officer further pointed out that the assessee and the authorized representative had informed the Assessing Officer that in the course of hearing for assessment held on 15.07.2011, the payers were not in a position to furnish the affidavit that the lorry payments had already been recorded in their books of accounts and they were assessed to tax before their respective Assessing Officer. The seven lorry transporters out of twenty transporters had filed affidavit, which contained no relevant particulars given about the receipt by the drivers, who according to the assessee operated in dual capacity. 10. As far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in (2013) 259 CTR (Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
