Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (8) TMI 607 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of ?52,201 under the head 'Subscription & Donation'.
2. Disallowance of ?1,80,719 under the head 'Carriage Outward'.
3. Enhancement of addition of ?3,15,026 under the head 'Home Biri Labour'.
4. Enhancement of addition on estimate @ 5% of total expenditure of ?6,07,49,596 under the head 'Home Biri Labour'.
5. Enhancement of addition under the head 'Home Biri Labour' amounting to ?30,37,480.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of ?52,201 under the head 'Subscription & Donation':
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in Bidi manufacturing and matchbox trading, claimed an expense of ?63,203 towards donation and subscription charges. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed ?52,201 due to the assessee's failure to produce supporting evidence, deeming it ineligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed this disallowance. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the assessee's continued failure to provide evidence.

2. Disallowance of ?1,80,719 under the head 'Carriage Outward':
The assessee claimed ?29,67,915 under 'Carriage Outward', but could not produce supporting evidence for ?1,80,719, leading to its disallowance by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, and the ITAT partially agreed. While recognizing the absence of vouchers, ITAT noted the consistency of such expenses with previous years and the minor increase due to fuel costs. Therefore, ITAT restricted the disallowance to ?50,000, considering the overall business context and historical expense patterns.

3. Enhancement of addition of ?3,15,026 under the head 'Home Biri Labour':
The AO disallowed ?3,15,026 out of ?6,07,49,596 claimed under 'Home Biri Labour' due to non-verifiable expenses. The CIT(A) issued a show cause notice and enhanced the disallowance to 5% of the total expenditure, amounting to ?30,37,480, citing lack of supporting evidence. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's detailed submissions, such as payments supported by PF contributions, excise duty payments, and historical consistency of such expenses. ITAT concluded that the CIT(A)'s enhancement was based on estimates without concrete evidence, thus reversing the disallowance and directing the AO accordingly.

4. Enhancement of addition on estimate @ 5% of total expenditure of ?6,07,49,596 under the head 'Home Biri Labour':
The CIT(A) enhanced the addition by estimating 5% of the total 'Home Biri Labour' expenses as non-genuine due to the lack of supporting vouchers. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the assessee's explanations and historical consistency of such expenses. ITAT referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that estimates should not be based on mere suspicion without evidence. Consequently, ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s enhancement.

5. Enhancement of addition under the head 'Home Biri Labour' amounting to ?30,37,480:
The CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance to ?30,37,480, treating 5% of 'Home Biri Labour' expenses as non-genuine. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) ignored several critical factors, such as the tripartite agreement for wage determination, historical expense patterns, and compliance with excise duty payments. ITAT ruled that the CIT(A)'s enhancement was unjustified and based on estimates without solid evidence, thus reversing the disallowance.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the disallowance of ?52,201 under 'Subscription & Donation' and partially upheld the disallowance under 'Carriage Outward', reducing it to ?50,000. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s enhancements related to 'Home Biri Labour' expenses, finding them to be based on estimates without sufficient evidence. The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions to the AO.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates