2015 (10) TMI 2296 - AT - Income Tax

Addition under section 40A(2) - Held that - In his impugned order, the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, has assumed that two parties, namely M/s. Regal Nirman (P) Ltd. and M/s. Prime Global (P) Ltd. are unrelated parties and it appears that on this wrong assumption, he has proceeded to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(2). In this regard, limited relief that has been sought by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing is that the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to give the assessee an opportunity to establish that M/s. Regal Ni rman (P) Ltd. and M/s. Prime Global (P) Ltd. are also the parties related to the assessee and to decide the issue afresh relating to the disallowance under section 40A(2) after verifying this position. Accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition under section 40A(2) of the Act for purchases made by the assessee from related and unrelated parties.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Addition under section 40A(2):
- The appeal was against the order for the assessment year 2009-10 regarding the addition of Rs. 9,62,730 made under section 40A(2) of the Act.
- The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as the assessee purchased yellow peas on different dates at different rates from related and unrelated parties, invoking section 40A(2).
- The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, stating that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the difference in rates and quality of the purchases.

2. Parties Involved in the Purchase:
- The assessee, a partnership firm trading in pulses, purchased yellow peas from related parties. However, the CIT(A) mistakenly assumed two parties as unrelated, leading to the confirmation of the disallowance under section 40A(2).
- The counsel for the assessee requested the matter to be sent back to the CIT(A) to establish that all parties involved were related, as observed by the Assessing Officer, to decide the disallowance issue afresh.
- The Tribunal agreed with the counsel, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitting the matter back for fresh consideration to determine the relatedness of the parties involved in the purchases.

3. Decision and Conclusion:
- The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper verification of the relatedness of the parties involved in the purchases to decide the disallowance under section 40A(2) accurately.
- The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to present their case regarding the relatedness of the parties involved in the purchases.