2018 (5) TMI 1543 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenditure regarding sundry creditors - bogus purchases - Held that - assessee has duly purchased goods from the two parties involved, who are very old and reputed suppliers of publicity - accounts of the assessee are subjected to Statutory Audit under the Companies Act 1956, Statutory Tax Audit u/s 44B of the IT Act - no discrepancies have found in creditors in these audits - AO was adding amounts on the basis of then un-reconciled differences which is violation of the principles of natural justice - thus additions is directed to be deleted - decided in favor of assessee. Taxability of dividend - Held that - dividend is exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act - assessee is entitled for a claim of deduction under Act if it is eligible for the same, even if the said amounts have not been claimed in the return of Income filed by the assessee - thus AO is therefore directed to verify the claim of this deduction - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure regarding sundry creditors
2. Revival of prior period expenditure disallowance

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenditure regarding sundry creditors
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order adding an unreconciled sundry credit amount of ?45,25,959 during the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added this amount due to discrepancies in the reconciliation of sundry creditors. The appellant argued that the accounts were audited under various statutory provisions, and discrepancies were adequately explained. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not confront the information with the appellant during assessment and failed to make efforts to reconcile the differences. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's addition lacked justification and violated principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the disallowance, emphasizing that the appellant had purchased goods/services from reputed suppliers. The Revenue's contention that the AO rightly made the addition was rejected as the reconciliation statement was not discussed in the assessment order, and the third party's correspondence was not provided to the appellant.

Issue 2: Revival of prior period expenditure disallowance
The Revenue's second substantive ground sought to revive a prior period expenditure disallowance of ?57,39,778. However, there was no discussion of this issue in the assessment order. The appellant argued that an amount received as dividend was inadvertently not excluded from the income computation, and it should be allowed as it was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. The CIT(A) accepted the appellant's arguments and directed the AO to verify the deduction claim from the appellant's accounts for the assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) allowed this ground in favor of the appellant, as there was no material suggesting that the write-off claim did not meet the conditions under the relevant sections of the Act.

In conclusion, the ITAT Kolkata dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of expenditure regarding sundry creditors and allowing the revival of the prior period expenditure disallowance in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of natural justice and proper assessment procedures in making additions based on reconciliations and discrepancies.