2012 (12) TMI 978 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) - labour charges paid by the assessee to its vendor at Deesa - Held that - Neither the assessee has provided any comparable rates to the revenue authorities nor the revenue authorities have made any attempt either by asking the assessee to provide for the comparable nor they suo moto collected any data from the market. What the revenue authorities have done is that they have relied on the internal comparable only to arrive at a figure of estimated charges per carat. In fact, the AO should have collected independent data or have asked the assessee to provide comparable periodic rates prevailing in the market at Deesa to set the bench mark. This exercise has not been done by the AO or by the CIT(A), which according to us, the revenue authorities should have done to arrive at some definite estimate. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice to both the sides, the AO must make enquiries and examine the comparable rates from the third parties at Deesa and then benchmark the average job work rate for the financial year in question and compute the job work charges.We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of addition of ₹ 43,97,624/- with the above direction to the AO, who shall afford adequate and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) in respect of labour charges paid to a vendor at Deesa.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case pertains to the disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) concerning labour charges paid by the assessee to its vendor at Deesa. The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading cut and polished diamonds, had paid substantial job charges to the vendor, Aakash Diamonds, who operated in Surat and Deesa. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee and Aakash were related parties, triggering the application of section 40A(2)(b). The AO noted a significant increase in labour charges per carat from the previous year, along with discrepancies between charges at Surat and Deesa. Consequently, the AO disallowed a portion of the charges paid at Deesa, adding it to the assessee's income.

2. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision. The CIT(A) found the arrangement between the two firms, belonging to the same individuals, aimed at inflating expenses to reduce tax liability. The CIT(A) emphasized the lack of justification for higher labour costs at Deesa compared to Surat, and the absence of detailed analysis regarding labour charges and cutting costs. Consequently, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO.

3. Subsequently, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. During the proceedings, the assessee's representative argued that engaging Aakash Diamonds was essential for the manufacturing process, and the charges paid were justifiable given the outsourcing scenario. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the revenue authorities' actions.

4. After hearing detailed arguments, the ITAT noted the association between the assessee and Aakash Diamonds, invoking section 40A(2)(b). The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's acceptance of some addition but questioned the quantum of the addition. Critically, the ITAT highlighted the lack of comparable rates provided by the assessee or collected by the revenue authorities to determine a precise estimate. The ITAT emphasized the need for market data to benchmark job work charges accurately.

5. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the addition of labour charges, directing the AO to conduct thorough enquiries, examine comparable rates from third parties at Deesa, and establish a benchmark for job work charges. The ITAT stressed the importance of fairness and proper assessment in arriving at a conclusive estimate. As a result, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the meticulous examination of the disallowance under section 40A(2)(b), emphasizing the necessity for substantiated justifications and accurate benchmarking in tax assessments.