2010 (9) TMI 822 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of deferred revenue expenditure - AO observed that the assessee is to be allowed depreciation instead of deferred revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee. - Decision of ITAT - held that - No substantial question of law - in favor of assessee. Addition on account of bogus purchase - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record had arrived at the conclusion that the purchases made by the assessee were genuine and not bogus as viewed by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) recorded were affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. - held that - Revenue could not show or point out any material or error of law in the findings of fact so arrived at by the appellate authorities below to persuade this court to interfere therewith in any manner. - Decided in favor of assessee and against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of deferred revenue expenditure addition
2. Deletion of bogus purchases addition

Deletion of deferred revenue expenditure addition:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer had made additions on account of deferred revenue expenditure and bogus purchases. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the deferred revenue expenditure addition by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the deduction claimed by the assessee was higher than the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reasoned that the Assessing Officer had not understood the provisions correctly and allowed the deduction based on depreciation calculations. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, stating that no error or perversity was found in the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal concluded that no substantial question of law arose in this regard.

Deletion of bogus purchases addition:
Regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the application filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner analyzed the evidence and documents provided by the assessee, confirming the genuineness of the purchases from various parties. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, noting that the purchases were genuine and duly confirmed by the parties involved. The Tribunal emphasized the detailed verification conducted by the Commissioner and the absence of any material rebutting the findings. The appellate authorities concurred that the purchases were legitimate, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the decisions of the lower authorities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of deferred revenue expenditure addition and bogus purchases addition, along with the reasoning and conclusions reached by the appellate authorities and the Tribunal.