2012 (12) TMI 64 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of discarded moulds and dyes - held that - Once an assessee claims any expenditure/deduction in its return, the onus is on the assessee to substantiate its claim by submitting the relevant documents/evidences. Contention of AO was that no details as regard the type of dyes/moulds, their number etc., their use and the amount incurred on those dyes/moulds were submitted. Assessee should have placed additional evidences at least before the learned CIT(A) even if the AO did not give opportunity to the assessee to place the copies of the bills and other evidences to justify the claim in respect of the dyes/moulds which were discarded by the assessee and claimed as discarded/obsolete items on the revenue account. However, in the interest of justice and considering that in the earlier years on similar facts the Tribunal has restored the matter for fresh consideration, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal dated 29th February, 2012 for A.Y. 2006-07, restore the matter to CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after considering the evidences as may be placed before him and also keeping in view his earlier order in assessee s case for the preceding assessment year(s) - Therefore, the ground of appeal taken by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of expenses claimed for moulds and dyes.

Upon appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue at hand revolved around the disallowance of Rs.6,50,026/- by the Assessing Officer concerning expenses on moulds and dyes. The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee debited the mentioned amount for moulds/dyes consumed, claiming depreciation on fixed assets. The AO requested justification for the expenses, highlighting the need for the assessee to substantiate its claim with relevant documents. The AO emphasized that if moulds/dyes were non-reusable and obsolete, they should have been deducted from fixed assets, deeming the loss a capital loss. Consequently, the AO disallowed the claim, prompting the appeal before the first appellate authority.

The learned CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision based on a similar addition for the previous assessment year, leading to the current appeal. The assessee sought admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, citing the absence of a request for bills and details by the AO. The assessee referenced previous Tribunal orders in their favor for different assessment years, advocating for the consideration of additional evidence to support the claim. However, the DR opposed the admission of new evidence, arguing for the confirmation of lower authorities' orders.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal acknowledged the importance of presenting additional evidence, even if not requested by the AO, to substantiate the claim regarding discarded moulds and dyes. Citing previous Tribunal decisions in the assessee's favor for similar issues, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The directive was to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law, considering the evidences presented and previous orders in the assessee's case for preceding assessment years. Consequently, the ground of appeal taken by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating a favorable outcome for the assessee in terms of the disallowed expenses related to moulds and dyes.