2016 (5) TMI 19 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on on account of inflated purchased - Held that - AO in the instant case has disallowed the substantive purchase without making the substantive enquiry about the prevailing market price of the product in question. The AO also not considered the payment to the party which was made through the banking channel. The goods were exported after the custom clearance and the payment was realized in terms of convertible of foreign exchange. We also find from the report of the custom department that no over invoicing for the export of the goods was made. Addition on account of bogus purchase from M/s Monoharlal Mahabir Prasad - Held that - AO has disallowed the purchase expenses due to non availability of the purchase bills. However the same has been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) after due verification of the necessary supporting evidence. Before us the ld. DR has not brought anything on record to controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A) therefore we are confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed this ground of the Revenue. Deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80HHC - CIT(A) allowed the same on the ground that all the aforesaid conditions have been fulfilled by the assessee - Held that - Now to avail the benefit under section 80HHC for the profit arising from the sale of the DEBT license the above said twin conditions needs to be satisfied. We accordingly find from the submission of the assessee that both the conditions have been fulfilled as provided in (a) and (b) of third proviso to section 80HHC of the Act. For the condition specified in clause (b) the assessee submitted that the Drawback credit attributable to custom duty was 35% in terms of Custom Tariff Heading 7018 and where as the DEPB entitlement was only 20%. We also find that the ld. DR has not brought anything contrary to the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In view of above we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore we dismiss the ground of Revenue.

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of addition on account of inflated purchases from M/s Madho Prasad Mahabir Prasad.
2. Deletion of addition on account of bogus purchase from M/s Monoharlal Mahabir Prasad.
3. Deletion of addition on account of inflated purchase from M/s Atul Enterprises.
4. Deletion of addition on account of inflated purchase from M/s Unisilk.
5. Deletion of addition on account of cessation of liability w.r.t. M/s A.B.N. Laminators.
6. Deletion of disallowance of freight expenses paid to Natwar Parikh and other freight expenses.
7. Allowance of 90% of the sale proceeds of the DEPB license as allowable deduction u/s 80HHC(3).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Inflated Purchases from M/s Madho Prasad Mahabir Prasad:

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and exports, purchased glass beads and chatons from M/s Madho Prasad Mahabir Prasad. The AO disallowed Rs. 12,87,94,000/- of these purchases, deeming them bogus based on a customs report indicating overvaluation. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the customs investigations against similar exporters had been dismissed for lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of substantive market price enquiry by the AO and the genuine nature of the transactions evidenced by banking channels and affidavits.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Bogus Purchase from M/s Monoharlal Mahabir Prasad:

The AO disallowed Rs. 20,000/- claimed by the assessee for purchases from M/s Monoharlal Mahabir Prasad due to non-confirmation from the party. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing the submission of necessary evidence, including invoices and sales tax forms. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting the failure of the AO to provide contrary evidence.

3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Inflated Purchase from M/s Atul Enterprises:

The AO disallowed Rs. 3,51,117/- for purchases from M/s Atul Enterprises due to non-production of bills and unserved notices. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided invoices, payment details, and the party's address during the remand report stage. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no contrary evidence from the Revenue.

4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Inflated Purchase from M/s Unisilk:

The AO disallowed Rs. 37,27,578/- for purchases from M/s Unisilk due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the submission of invoices, bill of entry, and bank certificates during the remand report stage. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of efforts by the AO to verify the imports and the genuineness of the transactions.

5. Deletion of Addition on Account of Cessation of Liability w.r.t. M/s A.B.N. Laminators:

The AO added Rs. 1,21,553/- as cessation of liability for a creditor outstanding for several years. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the submission of the creditor's current address and tax details, and the lack of evidence for cessation or remission of liability. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence of cessation of liability.

6. Deletion of Disallowance of Freight Expenses:

The AO disallowed Rs. 52,046/- towards freight charges to Natwar Parikh Industries and Rs. 38,235/- for other freight expenses due to non-production of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) allowed Rs. 23,250/- for Natwar Parikh Industries based on submitted invoices but disallowed 20% of the miscellaneous freight expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the partial submission of evidence and considering the turnover of the company.

7. Allowance of 90% of the Sale Proceeds of the DEPB License as Allowable Deduction u/s 80HHC(3):

The AO disallowed the deduction of Rs. 2,15,29,749/- from the sale of DEPB licenses, citing non-fulfillment of conditions under section 80HHC(3). The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, finding that the assessee met the conditions of having an option between duty drawback and DEPB and that the customs duty rate was higher than the DEPB rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the fulfillment of the specified conditions.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of all additions and disallowances made by the AO. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned and evidence-backed decisions.

← Previous Next →