2010 (1) TMI 1210 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of job charges received.
2. Deletion of addition u/s 68 on account of share capital received.
3. Disallowance of various administrative expenses.
4. Disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF.
5. Deletion of disallowance of bogus purchases.
6. Deletion of disallowance of claims paid by the assessee in respect of processing of goods.
7. Deletion of disallowance of loss from fire.
8. Deletion of addition u/s 69B for shortage of cash found at the time of search.
9. Deletion of addition u/s 69B for excess stock of finished goods found during the course of search.

Summary:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Job Charges Received:
The first issue in appeal by the revenue, except for AY 2000-01, is against the deletion of addition made on account of job charges received by the assessee. The AO made additions based on seized papers indicating higher average job charges than recorded. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, stating that the transactions were accounted for, and the AO's estimation was not bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no evidence of unrecorded job charges.

2. Deletion of Addition u/s 68 on Account of Share Capital Received:
The AO added share application money as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 due to lack of identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided necessary documents. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s action, stating that the assessee was justified in producing evidence before the CIT(A) and there was no violation of Rule 46A.

3. Disallowance of Various Administrative Expenses:
The AO disallowed 20% of administrative expenses due to non-production of bills and invoices. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance entirely, noting that the assessee was not asked to produce bills and invoices and had filed necessary details.

4. Disallowance on Account of Delayed Payment of Employees' Contribution to PF:
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that payments were made before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Alom Exclusion.

5. Deletion of Disallowance of Bogus Purchases:
The AO disallowed purchases from Pooja Dyes Chem, alleging they issued bogus bills. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the AO did not provide specific evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the disallowance was based on presumption.

6. Deletion of Disallowance of Claims Paid by the Assessee in Respect of Processing of Goods:
The AO disallowed claims due to lack of explanation. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the claims were reasonable and supported by ledger accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the claims were adequately explained.

7. Deletion of Disallowance of Loss from Fire:
The AO disallowed the loss claim due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the insurance claim received was credited to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to verify the facts.

8. Deletion of Addition u/s 69B for Shortage of Cash Found at the Time of Search:
The AO added the shortage of cash as income u/s 69B. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating shortage in cash is not an income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the provisions of section 69B did not apply.

9. Deletion of Addition u/s 69B for Excess Stock of Finished Goods Found During the Course of Search:
The AO added the value of excess stock found during search u/s 69B. The CIT(A) reduced the addition, accepting part of the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, noting the excess stock was adequately explained by the disclosure made during the search.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 15.1.2010.