2015 (11) TMI 1362 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of 10% of the value of purchases - the suppliers did not respond to the notices issued by the AO - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd (2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) to grant relief in respect of this addition wherein held that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent assessee. In the instant case also, the AO has made the impugned addition only for the reason that the suppliers did not respond to the notices issued by him. No other material was brought on record by him. Hence, the reasoning given by the AO does not justify the addition made by him. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of labour charges - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - We notice that the assessee has furnished the details of labour charges before the AO, but the assessing officer did not examine the same with the reasoning that the same was filed at the fag end of the assessment. Before Ld CIT(A) has submitted that the assessee had deducted tax at source against those payments. During the course of hearing, the Ld A.R carried us through the various details furnished before the AO. Thus, we notice that the assessee has furnished the relevant details, but the assessing officer has made the impugned disallowance without finding fault with those details. Hence, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition also. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of sundry creditors balances - additions made for the reasoning that the assessee did not furnish confirmation letters obtained from them - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has taken the view that the assessing officer has made this addition on surmises and conjectures. The Ld A.R submitted before us that the assessee had provided the addresses of all the sundry creditors and the assessee could not furnish the confirmation letters only for want of time. Accordingly he contended that the assessing officer was not justified in drawing adverse inferences without finding fault with the account books of the assessee. We find merit in the said contentions. Admittedly, the assessee was not given sufficient time to furnish the confirmation letters. Even otherwise, it is stated that two of the three parties are having running accounts with the assessee. The third party has been fully paid in the succeeding year by way of cheques. Thus AO was not justified in drawing adverse inferences against the assessee without bringing any other material on record. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition also.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of 10% of purchases
- Disallowance of 10% of labour charges
- Addition of Sundry creditors balance

Disallowance of 10% of Purchases:
The revenue challenged the deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the purchases. The AO disallowed 10% of the purchases as the suppliers did not respond to notices, leading to unproved claims. The Ld CIT(A) referred to a previous case where non-appearance of suppliers did not justify disallowance. The Tribunal agreed, stating that lack of supplier response alone was insufficient for disallowance, supporting the Ld CIT(A)'s decision to delete this addition.

Disallowance of 10% of Labour Charges:
Regarding the disallowance of labour charges, the AO did not examine details provided by the assessee, claiming they were submitted late. The Ld CIT(A) found fault with the AO's decision, noting that tax deductions were made and relevant details were submitted. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the AO's disallowance lacked justification, supporting the Ld CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition.

Addition of Sundry Creditors Balance:
The AO added outstanding balances of certain creditors to the total income due to lack of confirmation letters. The Ld CIT(A) found fault with the AO's rush in assessment without giving adequate time to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessing officer drew adverse inferences without sufficient evidence. The Ld CIT(A) justified the deletion of this addition, as the assessee provided creditor addresses and faced time constraints. The Tribunal upheld the Ld CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Ld CIT(A)'s decisions to delete all three additions challenged by the revenue, emphasizing the importance of proper justification and evidence in making such assessments.