2016 (1) TMI 744 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of difference in purchases as shown by the assessee in its trading account and as shown in the books of M/s. Escorts Tractor Ltd - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The action of the Assessing Officer of rejecting the claim of the assessee regarding the purchase return and making addition of entire amount as income of the assessee is without any basis because the purchase return of this amount, as claimed by the assessee, has been duly confirmed by M/s Escorts Ltd. being the seller and all the differences pointed out by the Assessing Officer have been duly reconciled as per categorical finding of CIT(A) in his order and none of these finding of CIT(A) could be controverted by Learned D. R. of the Revenue. We also feel that this objection of the A.O. that the Debit Notes are on plain paper loses its significance once the fact of purchase return is confirmed by the seller i.e. M/s Escorts Limited. The objection on the basis of this allegation that there is no evidence of actual movement of tractors on purchase return is also not significant in view of confirmation by the seller i.e. M/s Escorts Limited. Moreover, it was also explained that purchase return of 1001 tractors and subsequent purchase of same tractors was affected in view of some amendments in VAT rules and in view of this, actual movement is not necessary at least for Income Tax Purposes. Objection may of VAT authorities if the VAT rules require actual movement but even in that situation, the claim of purchase return cannot be rejected when both parties are confirming and there is no evidence of sale outside books or closing stock - Decided against revenue Addition on account of carrier fuel expenses and repair & maintenance expenses - rejection of books results - - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In the present year, the fuel expenses is 36.87% and repairs and maintenance expenses is 6.32% and the same was 40.68% and 4.51% in assessment year 2006-07 and 44.38% and 5.58% in assessment year 2007-08. Since the expenses claimed by the assessee in the present year is at par with such expenses in preceding two years and no adverse material has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer for making this disallowance and the same was made on this arbitrary basis that the payment was not made by the assessee by ignoring the explanation of the assessee that the payment was made by sister concern by debiting the account of the assessee firm, we find no reason to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A). - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of difference in purchases.
2. Deletion of addition on account of carrier fuel expenses and repair & maintenance expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Difference in Purchases

The Revenue's appeal contested the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to discrepancies in the purchase amounts reported by the assessee and those reflected in the books of M/s Escorts Tractor Ltd. The AO had disallowed Rs. 37,43,39,152/- as income of the assessee, citing lack of irrefutable evidence and discrepancies in documentation, including unsigned and unstamped bills. The AO argued that the sales and purchase returns were not genuine and were premeditated to manipulate VAT implications.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the difference in purchases was duly explained and supported by documents, including confirmation letters from M/s Escorts Ltd. The CIT(A) noted that the AO failed to verify the books of accounts properly and ignored the purchase returns which were indeed supported by proper documentation. The CIT(A) highlighted that the purchase returns were confirmed by the seller, M/s Escorts Ltd., and were verifiable from both the appellant's and the seller's records. Additionally, the CIT(A) pointed out that the AO did not provide evidence to disprove the purchase returns or to show that the tractors were sold outside the books or were part of the closing stock.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the objections raised by the AO, such as the use of plain paper for debit notes and lack of evidence for actual movement of stock, were insignificant once the seller confirmed the purchase returns. The Tribunal also noted that the purchase returns were necessitated by amendments in VAT rules, making the actual movement of stock irrelevant for income tax purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and rejected Ground No. 1.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Carrier Fuel Expenses and Repair & Maintenance Expenses

The AO had disallowed Rs. 61,19,427/- on account of carrier fuel expenses and repair & maintenance expenses, arguing that these payments were made in cash to related parties and should be allowed to M/s Republic Service Centre, not the assessee. The AO also noted that the assessee failed to produce counterfoils of cheques for verification.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, comparing the expenses with those of earlier years and finding them consistent. The CIT(A) noted that the expenses were not actually incurred in cash but were debited by the sister concern, M/s Republic Sales Centre, and the assessee provided a copy of the account. The CIT(A) also addressed the AO's concern about advances given to Shri Zafar Khan, explaining that these were for meeting various expenses and were accounted for subsequently.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the expenses claimed were in line with those of preceding years and that no adverse material was presented by the AO. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, especially since the payments were made by the sister concern and debited to the assessee's account. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and rejected Ground No. 2.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on both accounts. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowances to be arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence, while the CIT(A)'s findings were well-supported by documentation and consistent with the assessee's records.