2019 (3) TMI 803 - AT - Income Tax

Outstanding debtors - difference in closing balance of sundry debtors in the books of account and submitted to bank - difference in sundry creditors on account of foreign exchange fluctuation gain- violation of rule 46A - HELD THAT - As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), AO while making the addition has not specifically referred to the difference in outstanding balances of a particular party. Simply relying upon the sundry debtors figure shown in the statement of account furnished to the State Bank of India, AO has added back the difference between the figure in the said statement and the sundry debtors as shown in the Balance Sheet. However, in the course of appeal proceedings, learned Commissioner(Appeals) has called for all necessary information and details from the assessee and having examined them in detail has found the difference in sundry creditors on account of foreign exchange fluctuation gain The impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) does not reveal examination of any additional evidence furnished by the assessee. Rather, the order clearly reveals that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rendered a factual finding after conducting a proper enquiry with reference to assessee s claim and such enquiry was conducted in pursuance to the power conferred under the statute. That being the case, the contention raised by the Department with regard to violation of rule 46A is unacceptable. Moreover, the Department has failed to controvert the factual finding rendered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the actual difference in the closing balance of sundry debtors which has been arrived. That being the case, the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue deserves to be upheld. - Decided against revenue Disallowance on account of salary and interest paid to the partners - Addition based on statement of partner - Doubt regarding supplementary partnership deed - no requirement in law to mandatory register the partnership firm with the Registrar of Firm - HELD THAT - In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished an amended partnership deed providing for payment of salary and interest to the partner. It is evident, the AO has refused to accept the amended partnership deed pointing out certain technical defects and also alleging that the amended partnership is an afterthought. Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the amended partnership deed and other facts on record has recorded a factual finding that the reasoning on which the Assessing Officer has disbelieved the amended partnership deed is not valid reasons - facts on record reveal that the interest and salary income received by the partners have been offered in the return of income filed much prior to the survey operation. Therefore, the afterthought allegation of the Assessing Officer may not have much relevance. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of ? 88,50,833
2. Violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
3. Deletion of disallowance of ? 2,39,11,706 on account of salary and interest paid to the partners

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of ? 88,50,833
The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of ? 88,50,833 related to the difference in sundry debtors as per the statement submitted to the State Bank of India and the Balance Sheet. The Assessing Officer added back the amount due to the unexplained difference. The assessee explained that the difference was due to foreign exchange fluctuation not accounted for properly. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the Assessing Officer's approach lacking specific details and conducted a thorough examination. After detailed analysis, the Commissioner sustained the addition to the extent of ? 1,40,95,257. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that no additional evidence was considered by the Commissioner and the factual findings were based on proper enquiry, rejecting the Revenue's claim of a rule 46A violation.

Issue 2: Violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
The Revenue contended that the Commissioner considered additional evidence without following rule 46A. However, the Tribunal found that no new evidence was presented, only a revised working of foreign exchange fluctuation gain. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that a factual finding was made after conducting a proper enquiry based on the assessee's claim, not violating rule 46A.

Issue 3: Deletion of disallowance of ? 2,39,11,706 on account of salary and interest paid to the partners
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of ? 2,39,11,706 related to salary and interest paid to partners. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment based on the absence of the amended partnership deed during survey proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no legal requirement for mandatory registration of the partnership firm and accepted the amended partnership deed as valid. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, noting that the interest and salary income had been declared by the partners before the survey operation, supporting the legitimacy of the claimed deductions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on all three issues.