2018 (6) TMI 1671 - AT - Income Tax

Addition to 10% of expenditure claimed under the head Growing Charges (Farmer) and under the head of Transportation Charge - CIT(A) restricted the addition by admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A - HELD THAT - There is a mention of the remand report submitted by the A.O. in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) which shows that a remand report was also sought by the Ld. CIT(A) from the A.O. As already noted, the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee on both the issues is specifically challenged by the revenue on the ground of violation of Rule 46A which is not there. Moreover, the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of growing charges and other transport charges was highly excessive and unreasonable as found by the Ld. CIT(A) and there is nothing brought on record by the learned DR to rebut or controvert the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. DR has also not been able to point out as to how the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) out of growing charges and other transport charges is not fair and reasonable. The relevant facts and figures as discussed by the CIT(A) in his impugned order show that the disallowance so sustained by him is quite fair and reasonable and there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the same, Therefore, uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on both the issues - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of growing charges claimed by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of other transportation charges claimed by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Growing Charges
The assessee, engaged in the business of hatchery, claimed a deduction of &8377; 37,77,871/- for growing charges in the return of income. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed a significant portion of this claim as the assessee failed to provide necessary details like the name and address of the farmer, farm land details, and quantitative information on eggs and birds. The A.O. held that the growing charges paid in cash were unverifiable due to the lack of documentation and agreements with the farmer. The A.O. restricted the claim to &8377; 10,41,717/-, disallowing the balance amount. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, restricting the disallowance to &8377; 3,77,000/-, citing lack of supporting evidence but finding the A.O.'s estimate excessive. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the disallowance made by the A.O. was unreasonable, and there was no violation of Rule 46A. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision fair and reasonable, upholding the relief granted to the assessee.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Other Transportation Charges
The A.O. disallowed &8377; 10,21,101/- claimed by the assessee as other transportation charges due to insufficient documentation and failure to produce relevant details during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to &8377; 50,000/-, considering that the assessee had claimed expenses for transporting eggs and chickens using their own vehicles. The Tribunal found that the disallowance made by the A.O. was excessive and unreasonable, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to &8377; 50,000. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that the relief granted to the assessee was fair and reasonable based on the facts and figures presented in the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of growing charges and other transportation charges, finding them to be fair and reasonable. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.