2012 (10) TMI 155 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The AO in the assessment order has not given any head of expenses out of which the addition had been made by the AO. Therefore, there was no question of finding that the expenses were not verifiable. It, therefore, appears that whatever additions were made in the original assessment order have been repeated by the AO without verifying the facts. It was, therefore, merely an adhoc addition, which has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A) - in favour of assessee. Unexplained capital introduced by the partners - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Considering the copy of resolution of the partners dated 05.04.2003 stating the reimbursing the amount in question to three partners & also bank charges have been mentioned of the same amount. Thus it would, therefore, support the case of the assessee that whatever bank commission was paid by the partners on behalf of the firm were credited in their capital account by debiting the same in the books of the firm. Therefore, there is no introduction of the capital in the accounts of the partners. The CIT(A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of bid money as payable - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee has filed copy of bank guarantee which support that the bank guarantee was given by the banker on behalf of the assessee through its partner & as per letter of District Excise Officer, bank guarantee of the relevant amount has been recovered. Therefore, it is clear that at the end of the assessment year, the amount was payable which was rightly shown in the books of account of the assessee. The figures of bid money and the amount paid by the assessee towards bid and forfeiture of bank guarantee of equal amount have not been doubted by the AO - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of expenses payable - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The AO noted that Rs.20,000/- represents audit fee payable and the remaining expenses of Rs.12,80,531/- are the routine business expenditures. And the assessee has furnished details to show that the amounts were payable at the end of the assessment year which were paid in April, 2004. Therefore, the same were rightly treated as amounts payable and as such, no addition was justified on the matter in issue - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of expenses disallowance
2. Deletion of addition of unexplained capital introduced by partners
3. Deletion of addition of bid money as payable
4. Deletion of addition of expenses payable

Analysis:

1. Deletion of addition of expenses disallowance:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs.5,35,000 on account of disallowance of expenses. The AO disallowed the expenses as the books of account and supporting vouchers were not produced. However, during the assessment proceedings, complete details were provided along with bills and vouchers. The ld. CIT(A) found that the disallowances made in the original assessment order were repeated without specifying the unverifiable expenses. The Tribunal held that the AO merely repeated adhoc additions without verifying facts, leading to the deletion of the addition.

2. Deletion of addition of unexplained capital introduced by partners:
The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs.6,79,963 concerning unexplained capital introduced by partners. The AO added the amount as unexplained capital introduced by partners, but the ld. CIT(A) found that the capital was related to bank guarantee commissions reimbursed to partners. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting that the reimbursement of bank commission expenses through partners' capital accounts did not constitute capital introduction.

3. Deletion of addition of bid money as payable:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs.38,15,000 on account of bid money shown as payable. The AO treated the amount as fictitious liability, disregarding the explanation provided by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's submission that the amount was recovered from a bank guarantee deposited by a partner. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, emphasizing that the information regarding bid money and bank guarantee was not contradicted by the AO.

4. Deletion of addition of expenses payable:
The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs.13,00531 on account of expenses payable. The AO made the addition due to the failure to produce evidence for payments shown as payable. However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the expenses were payable at the end of the assessment year and were subsequently paid. The Tribunal agreed with the ld. CIT(A) that no addition was justified as the expenses were correctly treated as payable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, upholding the deletions of various additions made by the AO. The judgments were based on the proper verification of facts and materials presented during the assessment proceedings.