Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 Sl.                                                                     Amount
                                  Particulars
 No.                                                                       (Rs.)
  1.      Cash payments in places where there were no banking           4,49,45,449

facilities available (Clause (g) of Rule 6DD)

2. Cash payments on which day banks were closed on account 69,29,000 of holiday (Clause (i) of Rule 6DD)

3. Cash payments to agents who are required to make 3,15,65,268 payments in cash to landlords (Clause (k) of Rule 6DD)

14. The exceptions to the application of sec 40A(3) is laid down in Rule 6DDJ. Rule 6DD after its amendment from 1995, reads as under:
Rule 6DD Prior to 25.7.1995, clause (j) of Rule 6DD of the IT Rules read as follows:
6DD.......
i) in any other cause, where the assessee satisfies the Assessing Officer that the payment could not be made by a cross cheque M/s. Abhinandana Housing Pvt. Ltd.

============================== draw on a bank or by a drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft......

(1) due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances or (2) because payment in the manner aforesaid was not practicable, or would have caused genuine difficulty 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 identity of the payee".

The above clause (j) of Rule 6DD has been omitted by the IT (fourteenth amendment) Rules 1995 w.e.f. 27.5.1995. It is pertinent to refer at this juncture, to the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Ch. Mangayamma Vs. Union of India and others (239 ITR 687), wherein considering the constitutional validity of the provisions of S.40A(3) of the Act in the light of the above amendment made to Rule 6DD of the IT Rules, the Hon'ble High Court observed and held at page 693 of the Reports (239 ITR) as follows:

M/s. Abhinandana Housing Pvt. Ltd.

============================== Therefore, it is not open for attacking the provision as violative of any provision of the constitution. There is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the said provision warranting interference by this court under the circumstances.

In view of the above there is absolutely no merits in the challenge made as to the validity of section 40A(3) of the Act by mere deletion of sub clauses (1) and (2) of rule 6DD(j). The said provision is perfectly valid and we may hasten to add that the deletion of sub clauses (1) and (2) of rule 6DD(j) is only a step forward in the achievement of the avowed object envisaged u/s 40A(3) of the Act.