Honble MITAL, C.J. - M/s Bherwa Fertilizers, Pali(hereinafter called the assessee) entered into various purchase transactions of fertilizers with M/s Kisan Agro Service Centre, Pali from 20.11.1979 to 23.12.1979. All these purchases were of more than Rs.2,500/- and their payments were made in cash. The total purchase transactions were to the tune of Rs.2,21,578/- and the assessee sold that fertilizer for the total sum of Rs.2,38,563/- and as per the profit and loss Account of that firm, the net profit earned by that firm came to Rs.11,525/-. (2). When this matter came up for consideration before the Income Tax Officer, he noticed that payments of all these purchase transactions were exceeding Rs.2500/- and,therefore,he called upon the assessee to give his explanation. The assessee explained that the seller was not prepared to accept cheque or bank draft and insisted on cash payment and that is how,the cash payment was made. The Income Tax Officer applied section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for shortthe Act) read with Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules,1962 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules)and came to the conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to the deductions of the amount of Rs.2,18,678/-,which was paid to the seller at different times in cash exceeding Rs.2,500/- and thus,dis-allowed the deductions of Rs.2,18,678/- and added this towards the income of the assessee. (3). The matter was taken up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, where the assessee failed but on further appeal,the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Jaipur Bench,Jaipur held that though the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules are applicable but the assessee is entitled to the deduction of this amount under Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noticed inconsistency in the statement of the seller of fertilizers but ultimately concluded as follows: — "In these circumstances,the assessee should not have been penalised with the heavy liability of tax on such a huge amount,the genuineness of payments whereof was probably not in dispute. From the figures furnished by the assessee at pages 27 to 29 of the paper book, it appears that most of the payments were in respet of goods received on that very date. The closing balance on each day was nominal. From the figures furnished by the assessee at pages 27 to 29 of the paper book, it appears that most of the payments were in respet of goods received on that very date. The closing balance on each day was nominal. It was further pointed out that most of the moneys had been actually paid off by the seller to his own vendors on the same date. Transactions in fertilizers are very quick in a few days and naturally quick exchange of money is required. One of the grounds taken before the ITO was that there was no such demand for fertilizers in Pali, whereas there were better demands from other areas where there were better irrigation facilities. Although,the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT V. Kishandas Maheshwardass, 121 I.T.R.-232 has held that the payment for goods given within the expression expenditure is to fall within the mischief of Section 40A(3). The Rajasthan High Court has comparatively taken a such lenient view in M/S Kantilal Purshottam Das & Co. V. CIT in D. B. I. T. Ref. No.8/75 dated 29.1.1985 reported in Tax World VIII, Part IV, page-50. Keeping in view the exceptional circumstances of the case and the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court, we are of the opinion that it would be too harsh, a penalty to levy tax on the assessee by disallowing its entire expenditure. The case can be said to fall under Rule 6DD(j) of the I.T. Rules." It appears from the aforesaid observations of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the learned Tribunal only looked into the genuineness of the payment and not the other ingredients contained in Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules viz., (i) due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances; or (ii) because payment in the manner aforesaid was not practicable, or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee, having regard to the nature of the transaction and the necessity for expeditious settlement thereof.Finding about the exceptional circumstances can be deducted from the penultimate paragraph of the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but on what fact, this finding has been arrived at has not been clarified. (4). (4). At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for opinion to this court:— "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was clearly applicable to the facts of the case and that the payment exceeding Rs. 2500/- aggregating to Rs. 2,18,678/- disallowed by the I.T.O. did not attract the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961." (5). A reading of the aforesaid question shows that we have only to answer whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules and Section 40A(3) of the Act would be applicable or not? No question has been referred to us as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, this deduction should be allowed or not? Accordingly, we proceed to answer the question referred to us that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules and Section 40A(3) of the Act would be applicable and attracted.Even counsil for the assessee conceded the applicability of both the provisions to this case. (6). The above answer given by us does not solve the problem whether the assessee should be allowed the deduction of Rs.2,18,678/-. In doing so,as already observed,besides giving a finding that the payment was genuine,as required bu Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules, further finding has also to be given that (i) either due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances; or (ii) because payment by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft was not practicable, or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee, having regard to the nature of the transaction and the necessity for expeditious settlement thereof. Since no finding in this behalf has been given by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the parties stated that it is not appropriate for this court to give finding in a reference and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to give finding on those matters. (7). We find the suggestion of the learned counsel for the parties to be reasonable. (8). On behalf of the Department, apart from other judgments,reliance was placed on Naghi Lal Vs C.I.T. (1) and Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawat Vs. C.I.T (2). (7). We find the suggestion of the learned counsel for the parties to be reasonable. (8). On behalf of the Department, apart from other judgments,reliance was placed on Naghi Lal Vs C.I.T. (1) and Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawat Vs. C.I.T (2). Pointed attention was made by Mr.D.S.Shishodia,the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue to a Division Bench decision of this court in Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawats case (supra),wherein it has been observed as under: — "In this context,it may also be stated that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued a circular dated May 31,1977 wherein after referring to the provisions of clause (j) of Rule 6DD of the Rules, it has been mentioned that various representations had been received by the Board regarding difficulties that are being experienced by taxpayers due to lack of uniformity in the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules by the Income Tax Officers and after considering the said representations, the Board has decided to lay down certain guidelines to ensure uniformity of approach among Income Tax Officers in this behalf. After stating that all the circumstances in which the conditions laid down in Rule 6DD(j) would be applicable can not be spelt out, the Board has enumerated some of those circumstances, which would meet the requirements of the said rule and the same are as follows:: — (i) the purchaser is new to the seller; or (ii) the transactions are made at a place where either the purchaser or the seller does not have a bank account; or (iii) the transactions and payments are made on a bank holiday;or (iv) the seller is refusing to accept the payment by way of crossed cheque/draft and the purchasers business interest would suffer due to non-availability of goods otherwise than from this particular seller; or (v) the seller, acting as a commission agent, is required to pay cash in turn to persons from whom he has purchased the goods; or (vi) specific discount is given by the seller for payment to be made by way of cash. In the said circular, it has also been stated that- It can be said that it would generally satisfy the requirements of Rule 6DD(j), if a letter to the above effect is produced in respect of each transaction falling within the categories listed above from the seller giving full particulars of his address, sale tax number/permanent account number, if any, for the purpose of proper identification to enable the Income Tax Officer to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the transactions. The Income Tax Officer will, however, record his satisfaction before allowing the benefit of Rule 6DDG). It is further clarified that the above circumstances are not exhaustive but illustrative. There could be cases other than those falling within the above categories which would also meet the requirements of Rule 6DD(j)." Thus ,it is clear that these circumstances are only illustrative. There can be other exceptional or unavoidable circumstances also, which would have to be shown by the assessee on the peculiar facts of his case. (9). On behalf of the assessee Naghilals case (supra), C.I.T. Vs. Mahendra and Co. Ltd. (3) and Kantilal Purshottam & Co. Vs. C.I.T.(4) were cited. (10). Since we have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not given findings about the two ingredients of Rule 6DD(j),we remit the case back to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations made in Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawats case (supra) and the observations made by us. Both the parties would be at liberty to cite whatever judgements they want to cite but what the Income Tax Appellate/Tribunal has to decide is whether on the facts and in the circumstances pleaded by the assessee, can it be said that those are exceptional or unavoidable circumstances and whether this case falls under clause (ii) of Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. Apart from the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the correct interpretation of Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules would be that even if the case falls under any of the exceptions still it is for the assessee to prove that the transaction is a genuine one. This would be an additional factor which has to be proved by every assessee. Even if the transaction is found to be genuine, it may be that the case does not fall under any of the exceptions. This would be an additional factor which has to be proved by every assessee. Even if the transaction is found to be genuine, it may be that the case does not fall under any of the exceptions. Then the assessee would not be entitled to the deductions. Therefore, in every case,the assessee will have to prove that his case falls within the guidelines given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes or the exceptions contained in clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules and also that the transaction is genuine one. (11). Accordingly, the question is answered and the matter is remitted to the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for decision of the matter afresh keeping in view the aforesaid observations.