2012 (6) TMI 712 - HC - Income Tax

Dis-allowance of Sundry Creditors - addition made u/s 68 on surmise of it being bogus - Held that - Tribunal after examining the mode and manner of payment, TDS certificates, vouchers produced etc., had reached the finding that assessee had discharged the burden upon them and the addition under Section 68 was not justified. No infirmity found in the order. Prior period expenses - dis-allowance on ground that though expenses are recorded in relevant year - AY 03-04, however vouchers are dated 31.03.02 - Held that - Since liability has crystallized in relevant year and cannot be called as relating to earlier year hence the same is an allowable expenditure. Depreciation to be provided at 60% and not 15% on computer peripherals. Depreciation on emergency spare parts - dis allowance on ground that emergency spares had not been used - Held that - Emergency spares are entitled to depreciation in terms of the decision in Capital Bus Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1980 (2) TMI 69 (HC)). Tribunal rightly held that depreciation was allowable to the assessee on the principle of passive user - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of sundry creditors by the Assessing Officer.
2. Prior period expenses disallowed as prior period expenses.
3. Rate and depreciation on computer peripherals.
4. Disallowance of club expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act.
5. Depreciation on capital stores for emergency spares.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Sundry Creditors
The appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were filed by the Revenue regarding the disallowance of sundry creditors by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06, and 2007-08. The respondent-assessee, engaged in the manufacture of carbon parts, provided confirmations, vouchers, and bills from sundry creditors, with payments made via cheques with TDS deductions. Despite non-responses from some creditors to Section 133(6) notices, the first appellate authority clarified the reconciliation and differences. Notably, even transactions with major companies like Steel Authority of India Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. were deemed bogus due to lack of responses to notices. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof was discharged by the assessee and deemed the addition under Section 68 of the Act unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Issue 2: Prior Period Expenses
In the assessment year 2003-04, an issue arose concerning prior period expenses amounting to Rs 4,72,452. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure, considering it as prior period expenses. However, the Tribunal examined the ledger entries and found that the liability had crystallized in the relevant year, with services rendered and bills received in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the liability was allowable expenditure for the year in question, leading to the deletion of the addition.

Issue 3: Rate and Depreciation on Computer Peripherals
For the assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal addressed three contentions. Firstly, it ruled that depreciation on computer peripherals should be at 60% instead of 25% as held by the Assessing Officer, aligning with previous court decisions. Secondly, the disallowance of club expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act was upheld due to factual findings and the minimal amount in question. Lastly, depreciation on capital stores for emergency spares was allowed by the Tribunal based on the principle of passive user, following established legal precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal's decisions on these grounds were upheld, and no interference was deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, maintaining the decisions made by the Tribunal on the various issues raised in the case.