2016 (1) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Delayed payment of PF contribution - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The deduction for the PF/EPF was disallowed by the AO on account of late deposit as specified under the respective Act. The same disallowance was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) relying in the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd.(2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT ). In view above we allow the claim of the assessee and uphold the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made on account of delayed payment of PF contribution - Decided against revenue Addition of interest as unexplained expenditure - according to the Revenue assessee failed to furnish the details and addresses of unsecured creditors - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - AR drew our attention to pages No. 10 to 12, wherein the details of the loan parties and working of interest was provided. Further, Ld. AR submitted the duly audited balance-sheet, wherein the interest paid to the loan parties for an amount of ₹ 1,85,62,489/- was duly shown which is placed at page 28 of the paper book. We find that AO has disallowed the interest amount of ₹ 83,83,743/- on the misunderstanding of the facts given by assessee. In the books of accounts of the assessee there were admittedly interest expenses of ₹ 1,85,62,489.00. The chart filed by the Assessee before the AO showed only the unpaid interest of ₹ 1,01,78,746.00 as on 31.3.1998. Thus there was no discrepancy whatsoever as presumed by the AO. Accordingly we are inclined not to interfere in the order of CIT(A)- Decided against revenue - Decided against revenue Addition out of interest payment to UCO bank though the assessee debited the same in A.Ys 1993-94 & 1994-95 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As find from the observation of AO that interest was debited in earlier years for the same loan for AY 1993-94 for a sum of ₹ 6,68,422/-. In this connection, it was found that interest was debited by assessee on account of some other loan of UCO bank only and this account was maintained by assessee at Guwahati branch of UCO bank and same amount was also settled by assessee with UCO bank. However, as regards interest charged by assessee of ₹ 17,31,894/- on account of AY 1994-95, AO observed that it has been debited in the books of account of assessee and therefore disallowed. However, Ld. AR has submitted before us that this interest has been reversed in the books of account of that relevant year and in support of its claim a ledger copy of UCO bank in the books of account of assessee is submitted which is placed at page 14 of assessee s paper book, where said interest charged by assessee has been reversed in its books of account in the assessment year 1994-95 only. So it can be inferred that this amount has never been charged in the profit and loss account in its books. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that assessee has not claimed double deduction of interest paid in earlier year and interest paid in relevant year. On this basis, we are inclined not to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) .- Decided against revenue Addition on account of profit earned from sale of assets - CIT(A) deleted the addition - AR submitted that as per the accounting method, a company is to declare the profit arising on account of sale-purchase of its assets by crediting the profit and loss account - Held that - While determining the profit chargeable the tax under Income Tax Act, the provision of Sec. 32 has to be complied with and accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. From the aforesaid submissions made by Ld. AR and examination of the case, the assessee has given the correct effect of profit arising from sale-purchase of its fixed assets in books of account and adjusting the written down value of its relevant block as per the income tax Act. We find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).- Decided against revenue Addition on account of hire charges - AO made the addition for want of supporting evidence - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As observed from the assessment order that disallowance was made for non-production of details of the parties to whom the payment was made. The Ld. AR drew our attention on page 18 of the paper book, wherein the party, Aparna Sales Pvt. Ltd. has confirmed the expenses of ₹ 2.40 lakh. Since the sufficient details have been furnished by assessee and accordingly Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO. So we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).- Decided against revenue Addition being the cultivation expenses incurred - AO made the addition for want of supporting evidence - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The AO has just disallowed the expenses of ₹ 2 lacs on estimated basis which is not justifiable as per the law. The AO failed to provide the specific reason for the disallowance. Therefore we are inclined not to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).- Decided against revenue Interest income treated as business income by CIT(A) - AO treated the same as income from other source and applied Rule-8 of IT Rules, 1962 - Held that - Since this issue has already been covered by the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 226 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) in favour of assessee and treating the interest income as business income and the same is binding on us. Therefore, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Deletion of addition on account of late deposit of Provident Fund (PF).
3. Deletion of addition of interest as unexplained expenditure.
4. Deletion of addition of interest paid to UCO Bank.
5. Deletion of addition of profit from the sale of assets.
6. Deletion of addition of hire charges.
7. Deletion of addition of cultivation expenses.
8. Treatment of interest income as business income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Tribunal noted a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It was observed that the delay was non-deliberate and due to procedural channels within the Government. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Late Deposit of Provident Fund (PF):
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 35,57,392 for Nagrijuli Tea Estates and Rs. 5,38,548 for Tongani Tea Estates due to late deposit of PF. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., which held that the amendment to section 43B by the Finance Act 2003 is retrospective and contributions paid before the due date of filing the return are allowable. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

3. Deletion of Addition of Interest as Unexplained Expenditure:
The AO added Rs. 83,83,743 as unexplained expenditure due to discrepancies in the interest details provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after the assessee demonstrated the correct interest details and provided audited accounts. The Tribunal found no discrepancy and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

4. Deletion of Addition of Interest Paid to UCO Bank:
The AO disallowed Rs. 24,00,316 of interest claimed by the assessee, asserting it was already debited in earlier years. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the disputed interest was related to different loans and that the liability was ascertained in the relevant assessment year due to a one-time settlement (OTS) with UCO Bank. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim valid and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. Deletion of Addition of Profit from the Sale of Assets:
The AO added Rs. 2,36,515 as profit from the sale of assets, treating it as business income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, explaining that the profit from the sale of assets should be adjusted against the written down value of the relevant block of assets as per section 32 and section 43(6) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

6. Deletion of Addition of Hire Charges:
The AO disallowed Rs. 2.40 lakh of hire charges due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that similar expenses were allowed in earlier years and relevant documents were produced for verification. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the assessee provided sufficient details, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

7. Deletion of Addition of Cultivation Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 2 lakh of cultivation expenses on an ad hoc basis due to substantial increase and lack of supporting vouchers. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, emphasizing that the books were audited and no specific instance of unsupported expenses was pointed out. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance unjustifiable and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

8. Treatment of Interest Income as Business Income:
The AO treated Rs. 21,575 of interest income as income from other sources, while the CIT(A) treated it as business income, applying Rule 8 of the IT Rules, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. v. CIT, which held that interest income for an assessee engaged in the business of growing and manufacturing tea should be assessed as business income. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in its entirety, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The order was pronounced in the open court on 24.11.2015.