Dismissing the appeal the Tribunal held  that the assessee had patently violated the prescription of section 40A(3) by incurring expenditure of Rs. 9,52,000 on purchase of stock-in-trade otherwise than by an account payee cheque. Going by the mandate of section 40A(3), disallowance was required in respect of such expenditure. The assessee had neither demonstrated nor was it its case before the authorities below that there was a bank holiday or the bank was closed because of strike on the date on which the transaction took place for the transaction to fall within the ambit of rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. The genuineness of transaction would not be a case for non-disallowance. It was the admitted position that the assessee as well as the seller of the plots had bank accounts at the material time and still the transaction was carried out in violation of section 40A(3) without bringing the case in any of the specific clauses of rule 6DD. The disallowance was to be affirmed. Followed. Madhav Govind Dhulshete v. ITO (2018) 259 Taxman 149 (Bom.)(HC)