2016 (5) TMI 968 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on written off valuation of work in progress under the head computer kit - Held that - It is undisputed fact that in IT industries technology becomes obsolete frequently, accordingly, the assessee has to take decision to use the items. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing of hybrid micro circuits by upgrading the technology. It is a business decision of the assessee after considering the report from the surveyor, which has been filed before the lower authorities but has not judiciously appreciated by them. In subsequent year, the ld Assessing Officer allowed the identical write off on account of obsolete FCT kits, computer. Therefore, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and legality of additions and disallowances.
2. Disallowance of ?17,900/- for tour travel expenses.
3. Disallowance of ?1,35,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for legal and rent payments.
4. Disallowance of ?14,630/- for watchman expenses.
5. Disallowance of ?13,898/- for mobile and telephone expenses.
6. Disallowance of ?19,810/- for hotel expenses at the site.
7. Disallowance of ?25,085/- for traveling expenses ROT.
8. Disallowance of ?3,792/- for hotel expenses ROT.
9. Disallowance of ?15,325/- for daily allowance ROT expenses.
10. Disallowance of ?4,742/- for conveyance expenses.
11. Disallowance of ?3,485/- for repair building expenses.
12. Addition of ?22,500/- for estimated realizable scrap value.
13. Addition of ?18,70,000/- for non-submission of valuation papers of work in progress.
14. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Legality of Additions and Disallowances
The appellant contended that the additions and disallowances made in the order under Section 143(3) were "bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons." However, this ground was not pressed and thus dismissed.

2. Disallowance of ?17,900/- for Tour Travel Expenses
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as the appellant failed to provide any evidence regarding the business nature of the expenses. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that no evidence was submitted even at this stage.

3. Disallowance of ?1,35,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia)
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance due to non-compliance with TDS provisions. The appellant claimed the amount was for rent and watchman charges, but the Tribunal found no merit in the additional evidence provided, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

4. Disallowance of ?14,630/- for Watchman Expenses
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as the expenses were for a previous year. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the expenses did not pertain to the year under consideration.

5. Disallowance of ?13,898/- for Mobile and Telephone Expenses
The CIT(A) treated the expenses as capital assets. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal, recognizing the rapid obsolescence in technology and treating the expenses as revenue in nature.

6. Disallowance of ?19,810/- for Hotel Expenses at Site
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as the expenses pertained to a previous year. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the liability crystallized in the current year and the genuineness of the expenses was not doubted.

7. Disallowance of ?25,085/- for Traveling Expenses ROT
The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal fully allowed the appeal, stating that the expenses were booked when bills were received, and the genuineness was not doubted.

8. Disallowance of ?3,792/- for Hotel Expenses ROT
The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal fully allowed the appeal for the same reasons as the traveling expenses ROT.

9. Disallowance of ?15,325/- for Daily Allowance ROT Expenses
The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal fully allowed the appeal, noting the expenses were booked upon receipt of bills, and the genuineness was not questioned.

10. Disallowance of ?4,742/- for Conveyance Expenses
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance for expenses related to a previous year. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating the liability crystallized in the current year and the genuineness was not doubted.

11. Disallowance of ?3,485/- for Repair Building Expenses
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal partly, reducing the disallowance to 5%. The Tribunal upheld this decision as reasonable.

12. Addition of ?22,500/- for Estimated Realizable Scrap Value
This ground was not pressed and thus dismissed.

13. Addition of ?18,70,000/- for Non-Submission of Valuation Papers
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition due to lack of supporting documents. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting the frequent obsolescence in IT and the business decision supported by a surveyor's report, which was not judiciously appreciated by the lower authorities.

14. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234D
This ground was consequential to the above findings.

Conclusion
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, providing relief on several disallowances and additions while upholding others. The decision emphasized the importance of timely and adequate documentation and recognized the rapid obsolescence in technology-related expenses.

← Previous Next →