The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji v. Sea Hath Canning Company
[Citation -2017-LL-1030-25]

Citation 2017-LL-1030-25
Appellant Name The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji
Respondent Name Sea Hath Canning Company
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/10/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags business of export • question of law • export of fish • cash payment
Bot Summary: P.C.: The appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji in ITA No.37/PAN/2016 dated 10 May 2016. The Tribunal was considering the appeal filed by the Appellant-Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax in Appeal No.123/CIT(A)PNJ-1/15-16 dated 28 December 2015. The Respondent is a firm, engaged in the business of export of fish and fish products. The Respondent-Assessee filed its return of income on 31 December 2012. The Assessing Officer, by Santosh 2 tx90-17dt30-10-17 an order dated 19 March 2015, held that the payments made to the suppliers of the Respondent-Assessee were made to the traders and not to the fish vendors or producers and an amount of 9605330/- was disallowed and added to the income under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act as the cash payments exceeded 20000/- An appeal was filed by the Respondent-Assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was partly allowed by the Commissioner by Order dated 28 December 2015 and disallowance of 9329370/- was deleted and disallowance of 275960/-, was confirmed. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the question of law that would arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the payments made to various persons by the Respondent- Assessee would fall within the ambit of Rule 6DD(e) and Section 40A(3), as they could not have been held to be payments for fish and fish products. The Commissioner, as well as the Tribunal, after considering the material, have rendered a factual finding that the payments to various persons were not bogus and they were for the Santosh 3 tx90-17dt30-10-17 purpose of fish or fish products.


Santosh 1 tx90-17dt30-10-17 IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.90 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji. .. Appellant Versus Sea Hath Canning Company ... Respondent. Ms Amira Razaq, Junior Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Appellant. Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. Date : 30 October 2017. P.C.: appeal is filed by Revenue, challenging decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji in ITA No.37/PAN/2016 dated 10 May 2016. 2. Tribunal was considering appeal filed by Appellant-Revenue against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Appeal No.123/CIT(A)PNJ-1/15-16 dated 28 December 2015. 3. Respondent is firm, engaged in business of export of fish and fish products. Respondent-Assessee filed its return of income on 31 December 2012. Assessing Officer, by Santosh 2 tx90-17dt30-10-17 order dated 19 March 2015, held that payments made to suppliers of Respondent-Assessee were made to traders and not to fish vendors or producers and, therefore, amount of 9605330/- was disallowed and added to income under Section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act as cash payments exceeded 20000/- appeal was filed by Respondent-Assessee before Commissioner of Income Tax, which was partly allowed by Commissioner by Order dated 28 December 2015 and disallowance of 9329370/- was deleted and disallowance of 275960/-, was confirmed. As against this order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), appellant-Revenue filed appeal before Tribunal, which was dismissed by Tribunal by impugned order. 4. learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that question of law that would arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether payments made to various persons by Respondent- Assessee would fall within ambit of Rule 6DD(e) and Section 40A(3), as they could not have been held to be payments for fish and fish products. 5. Commissioner (Appeals), as well as Tribunal, after considering material, have rendered factual finding that payments to various persons were not bogus and they were for Santosh 3 tx90-17dt30-10-17 purpose of fish or fish products. No perversity in this factual finding is pointed out. Once this factual finding is accepted, then payments will squarely fall within clause (3) of Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules read with Section 40A(3) of Act. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals), as well as Tribunal, have rightly given benefit to Respondent-Assessee of Section 40A(e) read with Rule 6DD(e). 6. In circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji v. Sea Hath Canning Company
Report Error