THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 629 of 2014 DATED:15.10.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income tax-II, Hyderabad. Appellant And M/s. Heritage Foods (India) Ltd., Hyderabad. .Respondent HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 629 of 2014 Judgment: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 27.7.2012 in relation to assessment year 2005-06 and is sought to be admitted on following suggested questions of law: 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal is correct in confirming deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) ? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that cash payments made by assessee come within purview of exclusion clause under Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules (for short Rules)? 3. Whether finding of Appellate Tribunal that trader acted as agent of Milk Producers as well as assessee company can be said to be based on material on record ? We have heard Mr. S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant and have gone through impugned judgment and order of learned Tribunal. learned Tribunal has concluded that if payments at level of milk producers are considered, each payment never exceeded specified sum of Rs.20,000/-. There is therefore, no violation of Section 40 (3) of Income Tax Act. Violation arises only if payments at point of representative and not otherwise. It is also noticed in para 4.6 that it is fact that representative of milk collection centre functions in dual capacity, both for assessee as well as milk supplier for incentives. Further it is undisputed fact that said representative filed confirmation letters before assessing officer asserting that they are agents of company along with their duties and responsibilities towards suppliers of milk too. It is requirement of these agents to make payment in cash for goods, i.e., milk, to cattle owners, who belong to economically weaker section, on behalf of assessee. Thereafter, learned Tribunal while following judgment dated 18.10.2011 of Gujarat High Court rendered in case of C.I.T. vs. Gamdiwala Dairy, concluded that payments made to milk producers are covered by exclusion clause Rule 6DD of Rules. We, therefore, do not find any element of law involved in this appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15th October, 2014 Pnb Commissioner of Income tax-II, Hyderabad v. Heritage Foods (India) Ltd