Case: Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

to the payee, having regard to the nature of the transaction and the necessity for expeditious settlement thereof and also furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as to the, genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee." As to the validity of section 40A(3), it was urged that, if the price of the purchased material is not allowed to be adjusted against the sale price of the material sold for want of proof of payment by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft, then the income-tax levied will not be on the income but it will be on an assumed income. It is said that the provision authorising levy of tax on an assumed income would be a restriction on the right to carry on business, besides being arbitrary In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction on the assessee in his trading activities. Section 40A(3) only empowers the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from undisclosed sources. The terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed in section 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee. It is also open to the assessee to identify the person who has received the cash payment. Rule 6DD provides that an assessee can be exempted from the requirement of payment by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft in the circumstances specified under the rule. It will be clear from the provisions of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black money for business transactions. ( Mudiam Oil Company v. ITO 1973 (92) ITR 519 (AP)) . If the payment is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or crossed bank draft, then it will be easier to ascertain, when deduction is claimed, whether the payment was genuine and whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country. Any restraint intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black money should not be regarded as curtailing the freedom of trade or businessAs for the second question it may be stated that the word "expenditure" has not been defined in the Act. It is a word of wide import. Section 40A(3) refers to the expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of which payment is made. It means that all outgoings are brought under the word "expenditure" for the purpose of the section. The expenditure for purchasing stock-in-trade is one of such outgoings. The value of the stock-in-trade has to be taken into account while determining the gross profits under section 28 on principles of commercial accounting. The payments made for purchases would also be covered by the word "expenditure" and such payments can be disallowed if they are made in cash in the sums exceeding the amount specified under section 40A(3). We have earlier observed that rule 6DD has to be read along with section 40A(3). The rule also contemplates payments made for stock-in-trade and raw materials. This rule is in accordance with the terms of section 40A(3). The rule provides that an assessee can be exempted from the requirement of payment by crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft where purchases are made of certain agricultural or horticultural commodities or from a village where there is no banking facility. Section 40A(3) is, therefore, attracted to payments made for acquiring stock-in-trade and other materials. This is also the view taken by several High Courts. See : (1) Sajowanlal Jaiswal v. CIT 1976 (103) ITR 706 (Orissa); (2) U. P. Hardware Store v. CIT 1976 (104) ITR 664 (All) ; (3) Ratan Udyog v. ITO 1977 (109) ITR 1 (All) ; (4) P. R. Textiles v. CIT 1980 (121) ITR 237 (Ker) ; (5) CIT v. Kishan)Chand Maheshwari Dass 1980 (121) ITR 232 (P & H) ; (6) Kanti Lal Purshottam and Co. v. CIT 1985 (155) ITR 519 (Raj) ; (7) CIT v. New Light Tin Mfg. Co. 1980 (121) ITR 229 (P & H) ; (8) Fakri Auto mobiles v. CIT 1986 (160) ITR 504 (Raj) ; (9) Venkata Satya Narayana Timber Depot v. CIT 1987 (165) ITR 253 (AP) and (10) Akash Films V. CIT 1991 (190) ITR 32 (Kar) . The decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Allahabad, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and Patna are to the effect that the payments made for purchasing stock-in-trade or raw materials should also be regarded as expenditure for the purpose of section 40A(3). The only discordant note struck on this aspect is by the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Hardware Exchange 1991 (190) ITR 61. The Gauhati High Court has observed that section 40A(3) applies only to payments made on account of "expenditure incurred" and that the payment made for purchase of stock-in-trade cannot be termed as "expenditure incurred" since money does not go out irretrievably in such cases.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction on the assessee in his trading activities. Section 40A(3) only empowers the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from undisclosed sources. The terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed in section 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee. It is also open to the assessee to identify the person who has received the cash payment. Rule 6DD provides that an assessee can be exempted from the requirement of payment by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft in the circumstances specified under the rule. It will be clear from the provisions of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black money for business transactions. ( Mudiam Oil Company v. ITO 1973 (92) ITR 519 (AP)) . If the payment is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or crossed bank draft, then it will be easier to ascertain, when deduction is claimed, whether the payment was genuine and whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country. Any restraint intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black money should not be regarded as curtailing the freedom of trade or businessAs for the second question it may be stated that the word "expenditure" has not been defined in the Act. It is a word of wide import. Section 40A(3) refers to the expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of which payment is made. It means that all outgoings are brought under the word "expenditure" for the purpose of the section. The expenditure for purchasing stock-in-trade is one of such outgoings. The value of the stock-in-trade has to be taken into account while determining the gross profits under section 28 on principles of commercial accounting. The payments made for purchases would also be covered by the word "expenditure" and such payments can be disallowed if they are made in cash in the sums exceeding the amount specified under section 40A(3). We have earlier observed that rule 6DD has to be read along with section 40A(3). The rule also contemplates payments made for stock-in-trade and raw materials. This rule is in accordance with the terms of section 40A(3). The rule provides that an assessee can be exempted from the requirement of payment by crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft where purchases are made of certain agricultural or horticultural commodities or from a village where there is no banking facility. Section 40A(3) is, therefore, attracted to payments made for acquiring stock-in-trade and otherdecisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Allahabad, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and Patna are to the effect that the payments made for purchasing stock-in-trade or raw materials should also be regarded as expenditure for the purpose of section 40A(3). The only discordant note struck on this aspect is by the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Hardware Exchange 1991 (190) ITR 61. The Gauhati High Court has observed that section 40A(3) applies only to payments made on account of "expenditure incurred" and that the payment made for purchase of stock-in-trade cannot be termed as "expenditure incurred" since money does not go out irretrievably in such cases.