2014 (6) TMI 910 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made by reallocating the expenses booked under the head Purchase and consumable from B.M. Packaging, Mohali (Non Exempt Unit) to B.M. Machines, Baddi (Exempt unit) as the assessee was booking expenses of its Baddi Unit (Exempt unit) against the income of Mohali unit (Non Exempt unit) - Held that - The same products are being sold from both the units and at the same price ranging between ₹ 5,25,000/- to ₹ 6,25,000/- in both cases. How the machines were costing less at Baddi was not explained. When the end product is same, the cost would also be the same. By installing a machine of ₹ 6 lakhs it cannot be said that the assessee is achieving economy of scale or some other technological development. It is a simple case of inflation of profits in the eligible unit and in such situation the Assessing Officer has clear powers in terms of section 80IA(10) to compute the reasonable profit. The Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself by observing that Assessing Officer has not pointed out any discrepancy because the Assessing Officer has clearly pointed out wrong allocation of various expenses which was accepted by the assessee before the CIT(A). Further, the Assessing Officer has also given reasons showing that profits in exempt unit have been inflated. In Section 80IA(10), it is clearly provided that if Assessing Officer has reasons that the business has been so arranged to show inflated profits in eligible unit then Assessing Officer has power to recompute the profits of such eligible unit. As seen from the sale invoice there is definitely a reason to believe that assessee has inflated the profits in eligible unit because the same product is being sold form both the units for almost identical price. In this background, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore that of Assessing Officer - Decided in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Error in allowing the appeal without appreciating the facts.
2. Error in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,19,196/- by reallocating expenses between exempt and non-exempt units.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Error in Allowing the Appeal Without Appreciating the Facts:

The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The Tribunal found that the assessee operates two business units, one at Mohali (non-exempt) and another at Baddi (exempt under Section 80IC). The Assessing Officer (AO) had observed significant discrepancies in the expenses and profits between these units. Specifically, the AO noted that the expenses for the Mohali unit were disproportionately higher compared to the Baddi unit, despite similar business activities and sources of raw materials. The AO suspected that the assessee had inflated the profits of the Baddi unit to claim higher deductions under Section 80IC. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeal, dismissing the AO's reallocations and adjustments.

2. Error in Deleting the Addition of Rs. 50,19,196/- by Reallocating Expenses:

The AO had reallocated expenses between the two units based on their sales ratios, resulting in an addition of Rs. 50,19,196/- to the income of the assessee. The AO justified this reallocation by pointing out that the expenses reported for the Mohali unit were much higher than those for the Baddi unit, despite the latter showing significantly higher profits. The AO also noted that the Baddi unit had newer and more efficient machinery, which should have resulted in higher expenses, not lower. The AO's reallocation was based on the observation that the same products were being sold from both units at similar prices, indicating that the cost of production should also be similar.

The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO, stating that the reallocation of purchases between exempt and non-exempt units could not be done without pointing out specific discrepancies in purchase bills. The CIT(A) held that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the reallocation and deleted the addition of Rs. 50,19,196/-.

Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the AO had indeed provided sufficient reasons to suspect that the profits of the Baddi unit were inflated. The Tribunal noted that the same products were being sold from both units at similar prices, which contradicted the assessee's claim of lower production costs at the Baddi unit. The Tribunal also found that the machinery at the Mohali unit was minimal and could not justify the higher expenses reported. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was justified in reallocating the expenses and adding Rs. 50,19,196/- to the assessee's income.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the AO's order, allowing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal held that the AO had the authority under Section 80IA(10) to recompute the profits of the eligible unit if it appeared that the business was arranged to produce more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient reason to believe that the assessee had inflated the profits of the Baddi unit to claim higher deductions under Section 80IC. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 50,19,196/- was upheld.