2015 (12) TMI 103 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made for bogus liability - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - AO has just made addition on estimate basis without giving any basis or finding as can be observed from the observation of the AO. Even otherwise, the CIT(A) after going through the remand report of the AO dated 09.11.2009 noted that the assessee company filed partywise details of liabilities for expenses, liabilities for others, liabilities for garden and liabilities on account of trade deposits and advances. The AO during remand proceeding could not point out any defect or adverse inference from these details. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly accepted the contention of the assessee after taking remand report from the AO. Even now before us the Ld. Sr. DR could not point out what is the error in the order of the CIT(A) or the factual finding is wrong. In the absence of the same and the facts narrated by CIT(A), we confirm the order of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Addition made by AO on account of expansion of maintenance of new extension as capital in nature - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - We find that the assessee has incurred expenses for maintenance of existing bushes which involved planting, growing and nurturing of such tea bushes which are entirely necessary for basic operation and manufacturing and production of tea. The assessee produced copy of ledger account before CIT(A) from where he observed that these expenses were incurred for payment of casual workers for uprooting, leveling and cutting jungle and weeding out unnecessary things and accordingly, these expenses are in the nature of revenue expenditure and cannot be held to be capital in nature. We concur with the finding of CIT(A) in view of the above facts and circumstances and accordingly, this issue of revenue s appeal is dismissed. - Decided against revenue. Direction to AO to apply rule correctly and determine the loss from tea business as income from other sources by CIT(A) - Held that - We find that the CIT(A) has merely directed the AO to compute the business income after applying the provisions of Rule 8 of the I. T. Rules. However, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has no power under the Act to set aside the issue but in our view, we direct the same accordingly. This issue of revenue s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by AO for bogus liability of Rs. 30 lakhs.
2. Deletion of addition made by AO on account of expansion of maintenance of new extension as capital in nature.
3. Incorrect application of Rule 8 in determining the loss from tea business as income from other sources.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue in this appeal pertains to the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for a bogus liability of Rs. 30 lakhs. The AO had made this addition on an estimate basis without providing any basis or findings for the same. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted this addition after obtaining a remand report from the AO, wherein it was found that the assessee had provided complete details about the liabilities shown in the Balance Sheet. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not reject the book results and that the liabilities were statutory as well as related to sales, purchases, and expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's addition was made without proper basis and that the CIT(A) had rightly accepted the assessee's contentions based on the remand report. The ITAT dismissed this issue of the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2:
The second issue concerns the deletion of an addition made by the AO on account of the expansion of maintenance of a new extension, amounting to Rs. 2,27,765, which the AO treated as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after observing that the expenses were debited under the head "expansion and maintenance of new extension" in the ledger account and were related to payments made to casual workers for various activities. The CIT(A) found that these expenses were revenue in nature as they were essential for the basic operation and manufacturing of tea. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the expenses were revenue in nature and not capital. Therefore, this issue of the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Issue 3:
The final issue revolves around the incorrect application of Rule 8 in determining the loss from the tea business as income from other sources. The AO did not apply Rule 8 while computing the business income, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed the AO to apply Rule 8 and determine the correct taxable income. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had no power under the Act to set aside the issue but directed the same accordingly. Therefore, this issue of the revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal of the revenue for statistical purposes, addressing the issues related to the deletion of additions made by the AO and the incorrect application of Rule 8 in determining the taxable income. The judgment provided detailed analyses for each issue, emphasizing the importance of proper assessment and application of tax rules in such cases.