1. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal has seriously erred in observing: In the case of CIT v. Nikko Auto Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 476 (P&H), that acceptance of payment by account payee cheque or account payee draft would be hazardous and cumbersome procedure and, therefore, the case of the assessee was fully covered by the exceptions provided under section 40a(3) read with rule 6dd(j) and the Board's circular.
2. We may note that we are not of the view that obtaining a cheque or a bank draft is hazardous and cumbersome procedure. Suffice it to say that in the present case, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the payee insisted on cash payment as observed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and further that the transactions were found to be genuine. We may also note that in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO, [1991] 191 ITR 667 (SC), at page 673, it is pointed out that the terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section.
3. It is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the circumstances under which payment, in the manner prescribed in section 40A(3), was not practicable or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee. It is also open to the assessee to identify the person who has received cash payment.
4. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion on the question of fact, we are not inclined to interfere. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.