2016 (8) TMI 1043 - HC - Income Tax

Addition made on account of inflated purchase - Held that - The assessee was manufacturing pharmaceutical medicines which are being exported. The assessee was maintaining the norms which are prescribed by the Government of India for a particular pharmaceutical medicine which is to be exported. Since there was a variation in the ratio, the Assessing Officer made addition based on the statement of the General Manager, in-charge production. In our view, the Assessing Officer has based his addition on the basis of the documents which are not available on the record and based on the statement of the General Manager, in-charge Production. Whether the assessee has followed the prescribed norms is not within the purview of the Income-tax Authority. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly held that the CIT(A) was wrong in relying on the input out consumption ratio.In our view, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have gone on different directions. - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of deduction under section 80-HHC.
2. Addition on account of inflated purchase.
3. Recalculation of transfer price of arm's length price.
4. Addition on account of inflation of purchase of raw materials.
5. Addition under section 69 on account of unexplained investment.
6. Disallowance of 90% of interest received for the purpose of quantifying deduction under section 80-HHC.
7. Inclusion of income from the sale of advance license while quantifying business profit under section 80-HHC.
8. Cancellation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c).
9. Deletion of penalty levied on the issue of adjustment made under section 92(A)(1).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Deduction under Section 80-HHC:
The Tribunal held that the issue became infructuous because the assessee's appeal regarding enhancement was allowed. The Court agreed, noting that the Tribunal correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the Tribunal's decision in a similar case (M/s. Gujarat Woolen Felt Mills). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly relied on the input-output consumption ratio, and the assessee's compliance with prescribed norms was not within the purview of the Income-tax Authority. Thus, the Tribunal's view was accepted, and the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee.

2. Addition on Account of Inflated Purchase:
The Tribunal deleted the addition of ?1,95,62,054/- made by the CIT(A) for inflated purchases. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in the case of M/s. Gujarat Woolen Felt Mills, where it was held that no addition could be made in the absence of specific material showing false claims of wastage. The Court upheld this view, stating that the CIT(A) wrongly relied on the input-output consumption ratio and that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on documents not available on record.

3. Recalculation of Transfer Price of Arm's Length Price:
The issue regarding the recalculation of transfer price of arm's length price was not decided as the learned counsel for the revenue was not prepared. The matter was adjourned to 31.8.2016 for further consideration.

4. Addition on Account of Inflation of Purchase of Raw Materials:
Similar to the issue of inflated purchases, the Tribunal deleted the addition of ?1,53,44,220/- made by the CIT(A) for inflation of purchase of raw materials. The Court upheld this decision, noting that the Tribunal correctly applied its previous ruling and found no justification for the addition based on the input-output consumption ratio.

5. Addition under Section 69 on Account of Unexplained Investment:
The Tribunal deleted the addition of ?45,22,659/- made under section 69 for unexplained investment in the purchase of raw materials. The Court upheld this decision, agreeing with the Tribunal's assessment that the CIT(A) wrongly relied on the input-output consumption ratio.

6. Disallowance of 90% of Interest Received for the Purpose of Quantifying Deduction under Section 80-HHC:
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of 90% of interest received, and the Court upheld this decision. The Court referred to its previous ruling in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bharuch Circle v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee.

7. Inclusion of Income from the Sale of Advance License while Quantifying Business Profit under Section 80-HHC:
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim for inclusion of 90% of income from the sale of advance license while quantifying business profit under section 80-HHC. The Court upheld this decision, referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which supported the assessee's position.

8. Cancellation of Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal cancelled the penalty of ?91,90,445/- levied under section 271(1)(c). The Court upheld this decision, noting that since the related additions were deleted, the penalty could not stand.

9. Deletion of Penalty Levied on the Issue of Adjustment Made under Section 92(A)(1):
The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied on the issue of adjustment made under section 92(A)(1). The Court upheld this decision, noting that the related additions were deleted, making the penalty unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue on the issues of inflated purchases, unexplained investments, and disallowance of interest received, among others. The Tribunal's decisions were upheld, favoring the assessee and confirming that the additions and penalties made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were not justified.

← Previous Next →