2014 (5) TMI 108 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of business promotion schemes Held that - payments are made in respect of transactions entered into by assessee in normal course of business - Payments have been made only on account of commercial expediency and matter should be examined from businessman point of view as held by Supreme Court in cases of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 1964 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME Court - Set aside order of CIT(A) and allow expenditure of Rs.22,24,416/- claimed by assessee under head Business Promotion Schemes - Decided in favour of Assessee. Addition towards unexplained credits u/s. 68 Held that - CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2 lakhs under section 68 when creditor had confirmed advance and amount was transferred from creditor s bank account to that of Appellant - He ought to have deleted this addition also just like he deleted other two additions made u/s. 68 for a sum of Rs. 6.5 lakh each for valid reasons - Discussed issue in revenue s appeal as already decided and confirmed Order of CIT(A), this ground of assessee in C.O. is dismissed Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of business promotion schemes.
2. Addition towards unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Difference in the claim of commission paid.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Business Promotion Schemes:

The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed Rs.22,24,416/- under the head "Business Promotion Schemes" comprising Rs.5,68,224/- for M/s. Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.16,56,192/- for M/s. Esveeaar Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. found that these expenses were not part of any agreement or actual business expenditure. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, noting that the appellant was a distribution agent and not responsible for marketing expenses, which were to be borne by the distilleries as per their agreements. The Tribunal, however, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the expenditure under "Business Promotion Schemes," citing commercial expediency and referencing similar cases where such claims were allowed.

2. Addition Towards Unexplained Credits Under Section 68:

The A.O. added Rs.15,00,000/- under Section 68 for unexplained credits from three creditors: G. Satya Divya, C. Suresh Kumar, and A. Sainath Reddy. The CIT(A) deleted the additions concerning G. Satya Divya and C. Suresh Kumar, confirming their identity, capacity, and genuineness of transactions. However, for A. Sainath Reddy, the capacity to lend and genuineness of the transaction were not established, and thus, the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was confirmed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion for the first two creditors and the addition for A. Sainath Reddy.

3. Difference in the Claim of Commission Paid:

A minor difference of Rs.1,435/- in the claim of commission paid was noted, but this issue was not elaborately discussed in the judgment, indicating it was not a significant point of contention.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision on the deletion of additions under Section 68 for G. Satya Divya and C. Suresh Kumar, and upheld the addition for A. Sainath Reddy. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of business promotion schemes, allowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order on the addition under Section 68 for A. Sainath Reddy but allowing the business promotion expenditure. The final order pronounced that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.