Friday, 16 October 2020

Treatment of Cash Sales under the Income Tax Law

 

Cash sales are sales made against cash. It is where the seller receives the cash consideration at the time of delivery. Unlike credit sales, cash sales do not result in accounts receivable. It is not necessary that the seller must receive the currency notes to qualify a sale as cash sale. Sales involving direct immediate transfer to the seller bank account or payments through credit cards are also cash sales.

No law which prohibits a trader or a manufacturer in making cash sales

There is no law which prohibits receipt of sale consideration in cash. There is no limit prescribed for Cash Transactions under GST Law as of now, which means any registered person may enter into any business transaction attracting GST Law in cash of any amount including Sales/Purchases to/from unregistered persons. But in order to, curb black money, the government has imposed various restrictions on cash receipts/payments and cash withdrawal from time to time through Income Tax Act 1961.

 

 Cash Sale – Tax provisions

Section

 

269ST

Section 269ST, introduced vide Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017 prohibits cash transaction exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account.

271DA

As per the provisions of section 271DA, any person who enters into a cash transaction of Rs. 2,00,000/- or above, will be liable to a penalty of an amount equivalent to the amount of transaction.

 

Section 269ST of Income Tax Act 1961 provides that no person shall receive an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 or more: –

(a)   In aggregate from a single person in a single day 

Cash Receipt of Rs. 2,00,000 or more, from a single person in a day is not allowed even if the amount has been paid through multiple transactions during the day which are below Rs. 2,00,000.

 

Mr A sold an item amounting to Rs 2,50,000/- to Mr B and received 5 installments of Rs. 50,000/- in a single day. He has received more than Rs 2,00,000/- in a single day.

 

(b)   In respect of a single transaction 

Cash receipts of Rs 2 Lakh or more which are related to a single transaction are prohibited.

In the example above, if Mr. A receives 5 installments in 5 days, still the transaction covers under section 269ST of Income Tax Act as amount received against a single transaction.

 

(c) In respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person 

Cash transactions or cash receipts related to a single event or occasion, can not be more than Rs 2,00,000.

 

A caterer receives cash of more than Rs. 2,00,000 in respect of a marriage even if separate bills are made and payment are received on separate days.

 

KEY NOTE

The Cash Transactions Limit is applicable on receiver and not the payer.

 

Non Applicability of section 269ST 

This section is not applicable on

(i)  Any receipt by Government , banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank

(ii)  transactions of nature referred to in section 269SS (Section 269SS deals with provisions related to receiving loan or deposit from specified person )

(iii)  such other persons or class of persons or receipts, which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.

Penalty 

Sum equal to the amount of such receipt shall be liable to be paid by the receiver as the penalty under Section 271DA of Income Tax Act. No penalty shall be impossible if such person proves that there were good and sufficient reasons for the contravention. Also, the penalty is imposed on the receiver, not on the payer.

 

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 27/2017 dated 03.11.2017 clarified that Section 269ST of the Act prohibits receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs or more otherwise than by specified modes in a day or in respect of a single transaction or in respect of transactions relating to an event or occasion from a person. As no exception has been given for agricultural income, any cash sale of an amount of Rs. 2 lakh or more by cultivator of agricultural produce is prohibited under this section. This circular also clarified that cash sale of the agricultural produce by its cultivator to the trader for an amount less than Rs. 2 lakhs will not:

(a)  Result in any disallowance of expenditure under section 40A(3) of the Act in case of trader

(b)  Attract prohibition under section 269ST of the Act in the case of cultivator

(c)  Require the cultivator to quote his PAN or furnish Form No. 60.

 

CBDT Circular No. 27/2017, Dated 03.11.2017

Subject : Clarification on Cash sale of agricultural produce by cultivators/agriculturist

Representations have been received from the stakeholders. regarding applicability of income-tax provision to cash sale of agricultural produce by cultivators/agriculturists to traders.

2. In this context, it is stated that the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') provides for the disallowances of expenditure exceeding Rs. 10,000 made otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. However, rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('IT Rules') carves out certain exceptions from application of the provisions of section 40A(3) in some specific cases and circumstances, which inter alia include payments made for purchase of agricultural produce to the cultivators of such produce. Therefore, no disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act can be made if the trader makes cash purchases of agricultural produce from the cultivator.

3. Further, section 269ST, subject to certain cxceptions, prohibits receipt of Rs. 2 lakh or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account from a person in a day or in respect of a single transaction or in respect of transactions relating to an event or occasion from a person. Therefore, any cash sale of an amount of Rs. 2 lakh or more by a cultivator of agricultural produce is prohibited under section 269ST of the Act.

4. Further also the provisions relating to quoting of PAN or furnishing of Form No. 60 under rule 114B of the IT Rules do not apply to the sale transaction of Rs. 2 Lakh or less.

5. In view of the. above, it is clarified that cash sale of the agricultural produce by its cultivator to the trader for an amount less than Rs. 2 Lakh will not:-

(a) result in any disallowance of expenditure under section 40A(3) of the Act in the case of trader.

(b) attract prohibition under section 269ST of the Act in the case of the cultivator; and Page 1 of 2

(c) require the cultivator to quote his PAN/ or furnish Form No.60.

 

Once the amounts have been credited in the sales account and have been duly included while computing the profit, the same cannot be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The explanation has not been rebutted with evidence by the Assessing Officer. The claim of the Assessing Officer is that, the assessee has conveniently and very cleverly filed his reply before few days, when the case is going to be time barred and hence the documents filed cannot be verified is factually incorrect. Just because there are problems of time and manpower to conduct verification and detailed examination of the claims of the assessee, an addition cannot be made by rejecting the claim of the assessee. (Related Assessment Year : 2014-15) – [New Pooja Jewellers v. ITO – Date of Judgement : 26.02.2020 (ITAT Kolkata)]

 

Assessee was importing mobile phones from China. Most of the time it was making sales of the goods when in transit by way of high sea sales. During the year total turn-over was Rs. 62.91 crores out of which high sea sales were of Rs. 59.11 crores. Sale consideration for high sea sales was received in cash. The assessee was having meager finances and was purchasing the goods on credit and was making the payment after the sale. The Assessing Officer with a view to verify the transactions of high sea sales issued notices to the buyers which were returned by postal authorities with remarks “left or not exist”. The Assessing Officer on this basis made addition of Rs. 59.11 crores under section 68. Held by the Tribunal that Section 68 was not applicable. Goods have been duly imported there have been custom clearances for the same. There were agreements for sale of the goods on high sea basis. Once the goods have been sold, the buyer became the debtor and any receipt of money from him is the realization of such debt. Therefore, Section 68 cannot be applied. – [M/s Singhal Exim (P) Ltd. v. ITO – Date of Judgement : 12.04.2019 (ITAT Delhi)]

 

Only profit margin to be added if cash deposit was from cash sales

There is no dispute that there were frequent deposits and withdrawal from the bank accounts. There is also no dispute in so far as the business of the assessee is concerned. Considering the nature of business of the assessee it can be safely concluded that the cash deposited by the assessee were out of his cash sales. In our considered opinion only margin of profit should be added on such cash deposit, therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). – [ITO v. Shri Pankaj Aggarwal – Date of Judgement : 16.05.2018 (ITAT Delhi)]

 

Entire cash sale can not be added, add only margin

In case the books are rejected, then only margins out of the cash sales can be added to the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has right observed that total amount appearing as a deposit in the account was not cash credits, rather sale proceeds of the assessee. Turnover of the assessee is to be computed on the basis of all these details and at the most, an estimated net profit can be computed as an income of the assessee.  Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,50,208/-. We do not find any error in the detailed reasoning of the ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. For dismissal of this appeal, we do not require the presence of the assessee. (Related Assessment year : 2008-09) – [ITO v. Shri Pavankumar Bhagatram Sharma – Date of Judgement : 11.04.2017 (ITAT Ahemdabad)]

 

As long as stock is available and nothing adverse against the cash memo is found then cash sale cannot be doubted - Cash sale is offered as income hence the same can not be added under section 68 (double addition)

It is but natural that if a customer makes cash purchase & lifts the goods, there is no duty cast upon seller to insist for address of the purchaser. In light of the fact that stock record was available with assessee, which evidenced making of sale, we fail to appreciate as to how any addition can be made by treating cash sales as bogus. (Related Assessment year : 2006-07)  [Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, Prop. M/s Poonam Enterprises v. ITO – Date of Judgement : 13.5.2014 (ITAT Delhi)]

During the course of survey two slips were found mentioning about sale of bardana of Rs. 10 Lacs. Cash of Rs. 10 lacs was also found. The assessee entered in the books of account sale of bardana and determined the profit on that basis. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10 lacs rejecting the explanation of the assessee. The assessee's explanation had been accepted that cash of Rs. 10 lakhs found during the course of survey were on account of realization from sale of bardana of Rs. 10 lakhs. It was held that since sale of bardana was duly entered in the books, amount of Rs. 10 lacs did not remain unrecorded and it was not unaccounted. It was also noted by the Tribunal that addition of the same amount again during assessment proceedings amounted to double addition. – [CIT v. Jaora flour and Foods (P) Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 294 (MP)]

Assessing Officer had doubted the cash sales as bogus and had made additions - It is not in dispute that the sum of Rs 24,58,400/- was credited in the sale account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return - It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal observed that the cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same

Cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books on account of cash sales and was considered in the Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer had verified the stock and cash position as per books and had accepted the same. Complete books of account and cash book was submitted to the Assessing Officer and no discrepancy was pointed out. On this basis CIT(A) deleted the addition. Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that sum of Rs.24,58,400/- was credited in the sale account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. Therefore, cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. – [CIT v. Kailash Jewellery House – Date of Judgement : 09.04.2010]

 

Not bound to maintain name and address of buyers in cash sale

In the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser. As to the cash transactions also, the quantity of sugar sold has not been disputed. The rates at which sugar was sold were not such as would excite suspicion by reason of being lower than the prevailing market rates. The names of the customers are also entered in respect of the transaction. All that is not done is that the addresses are not entered and on enquiry the assessee was unable to supply the addresses. There was no necessity whatsoever for the assessee to have maintained the addresses of cash customers, the failure to maintain the same or to supply them as and there was no necessity whatsoever for the assessee to have maintained the addresses of cash customers, the failure to maintain the same or to supply them as and when called for cannot be regarded as a circumstance giving rise to a suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the transactions. – [R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) v. CIT (1969) 75 ITR 33 (Bom.)

 

 


 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment