2013 (5) TMI 528 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction of discount as claimed twice - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) after verifying the sales promotion ledger account of the assessee observed that the sales promotion expenses of ₹ 26,673/- debited in the profit and loss account are expenses other than the expenses of ₹ 9,55,685/- claimed as deduction from the commission income. Therefore there was no double claim of these expenses as observed by the AO. DR could not bring any material on record to show that this finding of the CIT(A) was not correct or to show that the deduction claimed in the profit and loss account under the head sales promotion expenses was not the expenses other than the expenditure as claimed as deduction from commission income by the assessee - appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of deduction of discount claimed twice by the assessee.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XIX, Kolkata, challenging the deletion of the disallowance of deduction of discount amounting to Rs.9,55,685 claimed twice by the assessee. The AO disallowed the amount as undisclosed income, stating that the discount provided to customers was not properly accounted for and was already debited to the profit and loss account. The AO argued that any further claim of adjustment against the commission would result in double deduction of the same charge. However, on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) found that the discount provided by the assessee was correctly accounted for in the books under the head 'sales promotion expenses' and was not a double claim. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account under the head 'sales promotion expenses' were distinct from the discount claimed from the commission income. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence to refute the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, confirming that there was no double claim of expenses as alleged by the AO. The Tribunal found that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were different from the discount claimed from the commission income, and since the Revenue could not provide any material to counter this, the disallowance of the deduction was deemed unwarranted.