The Madras High Court’s recent judgment in the case of Abiram Agency vs ITO has brought much-needed clarity to the application of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding exceptions under Rule 6DD for cash payments exceeding prescribed limits. This landmark decision reinforces that while the Income Tax Act discourages cash transactions to promote transparency and prevent tax evasion, genuine business transactions backed by proper documentation may qualify for exemptions under specific circumstances.
M/s. Abiram Agency, a partnership firm engaged in the business of selling building materials including asbestos, cement sheets, ceramic items, and sanitary ware, found itself embroiled in tax litigation spanning multiple assessment years (2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09). The controversy arose when the Assessing Officer (AO) conducted a survey at the firm’s business premises on February 27, 2008, which led to reassessment proceedings.
During the reassessment, the AO scrutinized the firm’s books of accounts and identified cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 made to various suppliers. For the assessment year 2006-07 alone, the AO noticed cash payments amounting to Rs. 46,96,275 that exceeded the prescribed limit. Invoking Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the AO disallowed 20% of these cash payments, resulting in a disallowance of Rs. 10,26,675.
Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act is a crucial provision designed to curb the practice of making large cash payments and encourage business entities to transact through recognized banking channels. The section aims to ensure transparency in commercial dealings and prevent tax evasion by creating an audit trail for all significant business transactions.
Currently, as per the Finance Act, 2017, if an assessee incurs any expenditure for which payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day exceeds Rs. 10,000 in cash, such expenditure is not allowed as a deduction while computing business income. However, it is important to note that the threshold was Rs. 20,000 before April 1, 2017, which was the relevant limit for the Abiram Agency case.
For payments made for plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriages, a higher threshold of Rs. 35,000 applies. This differential treatment acknowledges the practical difficulties in the transportation sector where immediate cash payments are often unavoidable.
While Section 40A(3) imposes strict restrictions on cash payments, the statute itself recognizes that there are genuine business situations where cash transactions become unavoidable. The proviso to Section 40A(3) states that no disallowance shall be made in cases and circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available, considerations of business expediency, and other relevant factors.
Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, operationalizes this proviso by enumerating specific circumstances where cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit are permissible. These exceptions include:
Payments to Government Bodies: Cash payments made to the Union Government, State Governments, or local authorities through legal tender for taxes, customs duty, excise duty, railway booking charges, and similar payments.
Payments to Financial Institutions: Cash payments to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), State Bank of India, scheduled banks, cooperative banks, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), agricultural credit societies, and land mortgage banks.
Foreign Exchange Transactions: Payments to authorized money exchangers and dealers of foreign currency for purchasing traveler’s cheques or foreign currencies.
Employee Terminal Benefits: Cash payments to employees as retrenchment compensation, gratuity, or other terminal benefits, provided they do not exceed Rs. 50,000 in a day.
Remote Location Payments: Cash payments to employees temporarily residing in remote locations without access to banking services.
Agricultural and Primary Produce: Payments toward the purchase of produce from animal husbandry, poultry farming, dairy farming, horticulture, apiculture, or fisheries, made directly to the grower, cultivator, or producer.
Cottage Industry Products: Cash payments to cottage industry producers who manufacture products without using power.
Agent Payments: Payments made by a person to an agent who is required to make payments in cash for goods or services on their behalf.
Business Exigency: Situations involving bank holidays, strikes, or genuine business emergencies where cash payment becomes unavoidable.
In the Abiram Agency case, the firm initially appealed the disallowance to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], arguing that the payments were genuine and supported by documentary evidence such as invoices and books of accounts. The firm contended that payments were made out of business exigency and in accordance with Rule 6DD exceptions.
The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s explanation and deleted the disallowance, holding that the documentary evidence provided sufficiently proved the genuineness of the cash payments. However, the Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the assessee failed to explain why payments were not made through prescribed modes (account payee cheques or electronic transfer), especially given that the firm had regular business dealings with some payees.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), after examining the facts and statutory provisions, sided with the Revenue and upheld the findings of the AO. The Tribunal restored the addition made under Section 40A(3), holding that the assessee had failed to provide adequate justification for not making payments through prescribed modes.
The Madras High Court’s intervention brought a balanced perspective to this contentious issue. The Court admitted the tax case appeals on two substantial questions of law:
The assessee’s counsel submitted before the High Court that the Tribunal failed to recognize that the circumstances mentioned in Rule 6DD and the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) over time are illustrative, not exhaustive. The proviso uses terms like “in such cases” and “other relevant factors,” suggesting flexibility in its application.
The Court acknowledged that the assessee had provided a clear explanation supported by regular books of account, bills, vouchers, and letters from suppliers confirming the transactions. The transactions were not suspicious, and the genuineness was established through proper documentation.
In its judgment dated September 22, 2025, the Madras High Court adopted a pragmatic approach that balanced the need for tax compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court made the following critical observations and directions:
On Section 40A(3) Disallowance: The Court recognized that while the first appellate authority was satisfied with the assessee’s explanation, the Tribunal was not. To afford the assessee a proper opportunity to substantiate its claim under the proviso to Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Tribunal’s order.
On Section 40(a)(ia) Disallowance: The Court noted that no substantial question of law was framed with respect to disallowances made under Section 40(a)(ia), which deals with non-deduction or non-payment of tax deducted at source (TDS). Therefore, the Tribunal’s findings on this aspect required no interference and were upheld.
On Section 68 Addition: For the assessment year 2008-09, the AO had added Rs. 14,24,300 under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits in the current account of partners. The Tribunal had already remanded this matter to the AO for verification, allowing the AO to examine the capital accounts of partners and verify the source of credits. The High Court simply recorded this direction without further intervention.
The Abiram Agency judgment provides several important lessons for taxpayers and tax professionals:
Genuineness Alone Is Insufficient: Merely proving that a transaction is genuine and supported by invoices is not enough to escape disallowance under Section 40A(3). Taxpayers must provide compelling reasons and evidence demonstrating that their circumstances fall within the specific exceptions provided in Rule 6DD.
Rule 6DD Is Illustrative, Not Exhaustive: The exceptions listed in Rule 6DD are illustrative examples, not an exhaustive list. Courts have consistently held that business expediency and other relevant factors must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Importance of Proper Documentation: The judgment reinforces the critical importance of maintaining proper documentation for all cash transactions. This includes invoices, receipts, vouchers, supplier confirmations, declarations regarding banking facilities, and detailed explanations for cash payments.
Burden of Proof on Assessee: The onus is on the taxpayer to establish that the cash payment was unavoidable and fell within permissible exceptions. This requires proactive evidence gathering and presentation before tax authorities.
Opportunity for Substantiation Is Crucial: Principles of natural justice require that taxpayers be given a fair opportunity to present their case. When there are conflicting findings between appellate authorities, remanding the case for fresh consideration ensures procedural fairness.
Business Exigency Must Be Real: Claims of business exigency must be substantiated with evidence showing why the payment could not be made through banking channels. Vague assertions without supporting documentation will not suffice.
The government’s policy through Section 40A(3) and subsequent amendments reflects a broader commitment to reducing the cash economy and promoting digital transactions. The reduction of the cash payment threshold from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000 through the Finance Act, 2017, was a significant step in this direction.
These measures serve multiple objectives: preventing tax evasion, creating audit trails for transactions, promoting financial inclusion through banking channels, and increasing transparency in business dealings. However, the law also recognizes practical realities where cash payments remain unavoidable due to infrastructure limitations, business customs in certain sectors, or genuine emergencies.
The Madras High Court’s judgment in Abiram Agency vs ITO strikes an important balance between the letter and spirit of tax legislation. While upholding the legislative intent behind Section 40A(3) to discourage cash transactions, the Court recognized that genuine business transactions backed by proper documentation deserve fair consideration under the proviso and Rule 6DD exceptions.
For businesses making cash payments exceeding prescribed limits, this judgment underscores the importance of maintaining comprehensive documentation, providing detailed explanations for cash transactions, demonstrating business exigency or other qualifying circumstances, and being prepared to substantiate claims before tax authorities with credible evidence.
The remand for fresh consideration provides the assessee with another opportunity to place all relevant materials before the Assessing Officer and demonstrate entitlement to the benefit of exceptions under Rule 6DD. This approach ensures that technical compliance does not overshadow the substance of genuine commercial transactions conducted out of business necessity.
As businesses navigate the complexities of tax compliance, the Abiram Agency judgment serves as a valuable precedent emphasizing that while the general rule restricts cash payments, properly substantiated exceptions rooted in business reality will receive due consideration from tax authorities and courts alike.
©2024.CHHOTA CFO - All rights reserved
