Skip to content


Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nathimal Badri Prasad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 515 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1979]116ITR409(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 40A(3); Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 6DD
AppellantAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentNathimal Badri Prasad and anr.
Appellant AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.P. Goel, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....be intra vires and, therefore, the questionwhether the new purchases were or were not covered by rule 6dd will arisenow. the tribunal will address itself to this question on merits, afterreceiving back our answer. in this view, question no. 2 is returnedunanswered. 4. the commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at rs. 200(rupees two hundred) only.
Judgment:

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]104ITR664(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.

3. The second question referred to us is whether the payments made forpurchases were allowable in view of Rule 6DD(j). We find that the Tribunalhas not addressed itself to the question whether any individual paymentfor purchases was within or without the ambit of this rule because ittook the view that the rule was itself ultra vires of Section 40A. In theview we have taken, the rule will be intra vires and, therefore, the questionwhether the new purchases were or were not covered by Rule 6DD will arisenow. The Tribunal will address itself to this question on merits, afterreceiving back our answer. In this view, question No. 2 is returnedunanswered.

4. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200(Rupees two hundred) only.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //