2018 (8) TMI 925 - HC - Income Tax

Partial disallowance on ad-hoc basis without rejecting books of accounts - disallowance to consumable stores - ad-hoc disallowance solely by taking percentage basis of consumption stores consumed in succeeding year - Held that - the issues raised in the appeal are only questions of fact and no question of law is involved. All three authorities have concurrently held after examining the facts, evidence and material on record that the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim for exponentially increase in the expenditure on consumables. It was permissible for the AO to reject the books of account under Section 145 of the Act and pass assessment order under Section 144 of the Act. Instead, the AO had disallowed the claim of expenditure on Consumable Stores only 10%. The assessee is not prejudiced in any manner in not resorting to the best judgment assessment by the AO. Disallowance sustained - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of adhoc disallowance to consumable stores without rejecting books of accounts.
2. Correctness of ad-hoc disallowance based on percentage basis ignoring excise department records.

Issue 1: Legality of adhoc disallowance to consumable stores without rejecting books of accounts:
The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing and trading, filed an Income Tax Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the Assessment Year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the claimed expenses under "Consumable Stores" due to lack of evidence supporting the claim. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, noting the absence of bills, vouchers, or stock registers for the consumables. The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the significant increase in consumables without adequate explanation. The High Court observed that the appellant failed to provide supporting evidence at any stage of appeal. The Court concluded that no legal issue was present, and the AO's decision to disallow 10% of the expenses was justified, avoiding a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling against the appellant and in favor of the Revenue.

Issue 2: Correctness of ad-hoc disallowance based on percentage basis ignoring excise department records:
The CIT(A) highlighted the substantial rise in consumable expenses compared to production increase, questioning the appellant's explanation. The Tribunal noted a significant increase in consumables while turnover saw a marginal rise, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court concurred with the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the lack of substantiation for the exponential increase in consumable expenses. The Court held that the AO's decision to disallow only 10% of the expenses was reasonable given the appellant's failure to justify the rise in expenditure. The Court found no legal errors in the lower authorities' orders and upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling against the appellant and in favor of the Revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the legality of adhoc disallowance and the correctness of the decision based on percentage basis, providing a comprehensive overview of the High Court's ruling on each issue involved in the case.