2016 (6) TMI 1039 - HC - Income Tax

Addition of unexplained transportation cost of coal - Held that - The Tribunal has held that if the claim of the Assessing Officer that such unaccounted coal is sold by the assessee, then the transportation cost is usually borne by the person who has purchased the coal and it is not the assessee who incurred such expenditure. We agree with the said finding. In support of the additions of transport expenses nothing has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. It is required to be noted that Section 69 is attracted where an assessee incurs any expenditure, the source of which he cannot explain satisfactorily. The condition precedent as to incurring of the expenditure must be conclusively established by cogent material on record. We are of the opinion that the question in this regard is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Addition made in respect of salt washing loss - Held that - The Tribunal in the present case has gone into the details of the method and procedure and come to the conclusion that the loss claimed by the assessee is required to be allowed. We have also considered the fact that Central Salt & Marine Chemical Research Institute which is an authorised institution on this subject has certified the salt loss to be up to 10%. The Insurance Company has also recognized the salt loss while settling claims of the parties and the Superintendent of Salt has also approved the salt loss. Decided in favour of the assessee Disallowance of expenditure incurred for the presentation articles/gifts - Held that - Tribunal has rightly considered the decision of CIT vs. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd 1993 (4) TMI 13 - BOMBAY High Court wherein it is held that presentation articles bearing neither the name of the company nor its logo could not be said to be meant for company s advertisement Rule 6B(1)(a) is not attracted. Therefore, the question is answered in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Unexplained transportation cost of coal
2. Addition made in respect of salt washing loss
3. Disallowance of expenditure for presentation articles/gifts

Analysis:

Issue 1: Unexplained transportation cost of coal
The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained transportation cost of coal due to discrepancies in coal purchase. The CIT (Appeals) later deleted this addition, reducing the premium rate from 20% to 8%. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the transportation cost is usually borne by the coal purchaser, not the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 69 requires conclusive evidence of incurring the expenditure, which was lacking. The Court agreed with the Tribunal, ruling in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Addition made in respect of salt washing loss
The Assessing Officer disallowed the salt washing loss claimed by the assessee. However, the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal both allowed the claim after detailed examination. The Tribunal considered expert certifications and industry practices to support the assessee's claim. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the salt washing loss should be allowed, ruling in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Disallowance of expenditure for presentation articles/gifts
The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure on presentation articles/gifts, claiming it was non-business related. The Tribunal referenced a Bombay High Court case to determine that Rule 6B was not applicable since the articles did not bear the company's name or logo for advertisement purposes. Consequently, the Court sided with the assessee, ruling in their favor against the revenue.

In conclusion, the Court confirmed the Tribunal's judgment, dismissing the Tax Appeals filed by the revenue. The decisions regarding the unexplained transportation cost of coal, salt washing loss, and presentation articles/gifts expenditure were all upheld in favor of the assessee based on detailed analysis and legal interpretations.