2018 (2) TMI 1645 - AT - Income Tax

Unconfirmed credit balances of parties - Addition to the returned income in respect of parties whose credit balances could not be confirmed - Held that - When all the purchases from named two parties have been made through bills and GR notes of the goods dispatched to Parwanoo have been duly verified by the Excise Department at the Himachal Pradesh border and trading results have not been disputed by the assessee and the entire payments have been made through banking channel, it is difficult to accept the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) so as to confirm the addition. So, the answer to the aforesaid question framed is answered in the affirmative. We are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 18,78,417/- claimed as deduction/s 80-IC of the Act by the assessee company, hence the same is ordered to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unconfirmed credit balances to the returned income.
2. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Confirmation of addition by the CIT (A) based on failure to prove genuineness of sundry creditors.

Issue 1: Addition of Unconfirmed Credit Balances
The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing LPG gas stoves, contested the addition of ?18,78,417 to the returned income for unconfirmed credit balances of parties. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IC of the Act, stating that the company was assembling items rather than engaging in manufacturing activities. The AO also noted the failure to confirm purchases of raw materials from different parties. The CIT (A) restricted the addition to ?18,78,417, deleting a portion of the balance. The Tribunal considered whether the addition was justified, given that the Excise Department confirmed the goods sold by disputed suppliers and supporting documents were produced. The AO's rejection was primarily based on non-receipt of confirmations under section 133(6) of the Act. However, since trading results were accepted and the purchases were verified by the Excise Department, the Tribunal found the addition unjustified.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80-IC
The AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IC, asserting that the company did not engage in manufacturing activities. The CIT (A) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowed amount. The Tribunal noted that the purchases from disputed parties were verified by the Excise Department at the Himachal Pradesh border. The company provided purchase bills, GR notes, and evidence of payments through a banking channel. Despite the failure to obtain confirmations from two parties, the Tribunal found the deduction disallowance unwarranted, as the purchases were supported by documentation and verified by authorities.

Issue 3: Confirmation of Addition by CIT (A)
The CIT (A) confirmed the addition of ?18,78,417 based on the failure to prove the genuineness of sundry creditors. The Tribunal referenced a decision by a coordinate Bench regarding non-verifiability of sundry creditors not necessarily implying their bogus nature. Given the verified purchases, acceptance of trading results, and payment evidence, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT (A)'s decision. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable and ordered its deletion. The appeal filed by the company was allowed, and the addition was removed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to the addition of unconfirmed credit balances, disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC, and the confirmation of the addition by the CIT (A).