9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1474 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses - CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance alleging that there is no evidence showing that such liability crystalized this year - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that in the accrual basis of accounting the expenditure may pertain to an earlier year but corresponding liability relating thereto has crystallized during the current year, wherein such expenditure can be booked and claimed. However, the evidence supporting the fact of crystallization of the liability in a particular year has to be produced by the assessee. But in the instant case, there appears no evidence placed on record to support this contention and therefore, we are in agreement with the CIT(A) who rightly confirmed the disallowance. Thus Ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained customer Advanced - onus to prove - HELD THAT - There was no valid ground for making the impugned addition for more than one reasons. Though the AO has not specifically mentioned S.68, at the same time however, he has not citied the provision of law conferring jurisdiction in absence of which he was not legally justified to make the addition. But otherwise also considering the issue in the light of the provision of S.68, no doubt the law is well settled it is that only initial onus lay upon the assessee, but he is not required to prove to the hilt and the moment such initial onus is discharged the same then gets shifted to the AO. The facts are not disputed that the assessee acted as a dealer of Maruti Suzuki for Ajmer District and as per usual practice, it was in receipt of advances towards booking of various vehicles of Maruti Suzuki. We find the advances so received have been adjusted towards the sale of the vehicle, sometime within the year or sometime in the later year/s. In some cases, it is claimed that the advance was refunded back to the customer. Looking to nature of transaction, thus, it the case of trade creditor but not a case of cash creditors hence, to prove the capacity of the customer is neither practicable nor desirable under law. But otherwise also we are satisfied that the identity, the capacity of the creditor and also the genuineness of the transactions in the facts of the present case, are fully established and evident from the material available on record in as much as copies of the ledger accounts and sales bill raised against the customer, were submitted in more than 1400 cases We also find that there is no merit in the allegation of deferring the sale of the current year to the later years for the reasons that though such allegation has been made by the AO in all the three years however, the figures were arrived at in other two years only. Such working could not be considered as full proof or beyond reasonable doubts, because mostly such working has been done merely on estimate basis and the assessee was never confronted of estimations made of the figures towards deferment of sale. Therefore, the conclusion that the sales of the current year were deferred in later years cannot be accepted on the face value. It is also noticed, that the assessment was made hastily as apparent from the record that even though return of income was filed on 08.11.2011, the assessment proceedings were commenced sometime in January 2013 and assessment was completed on 28.03.2013 which means that within a short span of 3 months only the AO completed the assessment. It appears difficult as to how one can make enquiries w.r.t. 1500 customers from whom advances were received. And reach to a just conclusion to burden the assessee with a huge tax liability. Such approach on part of the AO cannot be approved. Thus the subjected amount of advance receive from the customers cannot be considered in-genuine and the lower authorities erred in making addition of the entire amount. Therefore, the impugned addition is directed to be deleted. Thus Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance on account of commission expenses - HELD THAT - We find that the disallowance under challenge was rightly made in view of the contradictory facts in case of Smt. Kamlesh Devi, hence the authorities below were justified in making the disallowance.. Thus Ground of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 42,988/- on account of Prior Period Expenses. 2. Addition of Rs. 20,28,74,955/- being Unexplained Customer Advances. 3. Disallowance of Rs. 2,16,000/- on account of Commission Expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Rs. 42,988/- on account of Prior Period Expenses: The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 42,988/- for prior period expenses related to interest and telephone expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the amount as the assessee allegedly did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the liability crystallized during the current assessment year. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating the absence of evidence proving the liability crystallized in the current year. The assessee argued that under the mercantile system of accounting, expenses are admissible in the year they crystallize. The assessee cited various judicial precedents supporting this view. However, the tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the lack of evidence to support the crystallization of the liability in the current year. Thus, Ground No. 1 was dismissed. 2. Addition of Rs. 20,28,74,955/- being Unexplained Customer Advances: The AO added Rs. 20,28,74,955/- to the assessee's income, alleging that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of customer advances. The assessee provided ledger accounts and sale bills but did not furnish receipt books or cash books. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, citing the assessee's failure to establish the identity, creditworthiness of customers, and genuineness of transactions. The assessee argued that the advances were received in the normal course of business and were adjusted against sales in subsequent years. The tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including detailed charts showing the adjustment of advances against sales in later years. The tribunal noted that the AO's approach was inconsistent with assessments in other years and that the AO had not provided adequate opportunity for the assessee to respond. The tribunal concluded that the advances were genuine and directed the deletion of the addition. Thus, Ground No. 2 was allowed. 3. Disallowance of Rs. 2,16,000/- on account of Commission Expenses: The AO disallowed Rs. 2,16,000/- out of the total commission expenses claimed, based on a discrepancy in the commission amount reported by Smt. Kamlesh Devi. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, noting the lack of supporting evidence for the services rendered. The assessee argued that TDS was deducted on the full commission amount and that most payments were made by cheque. The tribunal found that the disallowance was justified due to contradictory facts and upheld the decision of the lower authorities. Thus, Ground No. 3 was dismissed. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the tribunal directing the deletion of the addition related to unexplained customer advances while upholding the disallowances for prior period expenses and commission expenses. The order was pronounced in the open court on 9/11/2022.
|
