9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 744 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of 20% of the discount and credit notes allowed to clients - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - In the present case since the AO had accepted the books of accounts maintained by the assessee in regular course of business and also did not bring any material on record to substantiate that the expenses on account of credit notes / discounts were not related to the business of the assessee. Therefore, the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO was not justified and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. In that view of the matter and by considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of 20% of credit notes and discounts amounting to Rs. 83,20,174/- by the Assessing Officer (AO). 2. Justification of the AO's disallowance based on the non-chronological issuance of credit notes and the proportionality of discounts to business generated. 3. Validity of the business practice of issuing credit notes and discounts and their recognition in the books of accounts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of 20% of Credit Notes and Discounts: The AO disallowed 20% of the credit notes and discounts amounting to Rs. 83,20,174/- issued by the assessee to its clients. The AO's justification for this disallowance was based on the observation that the credit notes and discounts were not proportionate to the business generated by each party and were not issued in a chronological or sequential order. 2. Justification of the AO's Disallowance: The AO noted discrepancies in the amount shown in the Profit & Loss Account vis-`a-vis the amount mentioned in the TDS certificates. The AO observed that the credit notes and discounts were issued mainly during the last few days of the previous year and were not in a proper sequence. The AO also pointed out specific instances, such as no credit note or discount allowed to M/s Kasturi & Sons Ltd. on a business of Rs. 2,69,28,427/-, whereas a discount of Rs. 5,38,586/- was allowed to M/s Quick N Save Services Pvt. Ltd., which had provided business of only Rs. 87,58,395/-. However, the AO did not provide concrete findings to prove that such expenditures were bogus or illegitimate. 3. Validity of the Business Practice of Issuing Credit Notes and Discounts: The assessee argued that the AO's findings were based on hypothetical grounds without any material basis. The assessee explained that the credit notes and discounts were issued as per the volume of business and other variables such as peak times, urgency of delivery, etc. The assessee also highlighted that the practice of allowing credit notes and discounts had been a regular business practice over the years and that the books of accounts were duly audited. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessee's submissions, the remand report of the AO, and the comments on the remand report. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the reasons stated by the AO for making an ad hoc disallowance were without any material basis and that the AO did not offer any comments on the written submissions filed by the assessee in the remand proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified and deleted the addition of Rs. 83,20,174/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 83,20,174/-. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not point out any specific instance where the expenses incurred by the assessee were not for business purposes or were not incurred in the regular course of business. The AO also did not reject the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act and made an ad hoc disallowance without any basis. The Tribunal concluded that the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO was not justified and dismissed the appeal of the department. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the department was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 13/02/2015.
|
