9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the CIT(A) order. 2. Addition of Rs. 57,091/- as Prior Period Expenses. 3. Addition of Rs. 51,269/- as Foreign Travelling Expenses. 4. Addition of Rs. 4,55,759/- u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the CIT(A) Order - The assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was "bad in law" and contrary to legal pronouncements. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 57,091/- as Prior Period Expenses - The AO disallowed the prior period expenses of Rs. 57,091/- on the grounds that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, could not claim earlier year expenses. - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the appellant failed to rebut the AO's findings and did not provide any evidence to warrant deviation. - The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not analyze the nature of liabilities under the relevant bills nor recorded any findings on whether the liability accrued in the year under consideration. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a speaking order. Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 51,269/- as Foreign Travelling Expenses - The AO disallowed the foreign travel expenses of Rs. 51,269/- incurred for Mrs. Hemaben S Sheth, wife of a director, as she was neither a director nor an employee of the company, and no documentary evidence was provided to show the work done for the company. - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, stating that there was no justification for the claim and no evidence supporting the business purpose of the travel. - The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the absence of evidence showing how the foreign visit benefited the company. The onus was on the assessee to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, which was not discharged. Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 4,55,759/- u/s 40A(2)(a) - The AO disallowed Rs. 4,55,759/- paid to VOPL for job work, considering it excessive compared to the rate paid to Agriguard Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., another associate concern. - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, stating that the transactions were not at arm's length and the reasons given by the appellant were not supported by verifiable evidence. - The Tribunal observed that the AO did not bring any material on record to show that the payment to VOPL was excessive in relation to the fair market value, legitimate needs of the business, or benefits derived. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the absence of cogent material to invoke provisions of sec. 40A(2)(a) and allowed the ground in favor of the assessee. General and Residuary Grounds - Ground no. 1 being general in nature and no additional grounds were raised, these grounds were dismissed. Conclusion - The appeal was allowed partly for statistical purposes.
|
