9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000 as loss by the ITO. 2. Deletion of Rs. 10,000 from commission by the CIT(A). 3. Deletion of Rs. 20,000 vehicle expenses by the CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000 as loss by the ITO The ITO disallowed Rs. 2,50,000, citing discrepancies in the valuation of closing stock and lack of independent verification of the dissolving loss of 12,560.5 MT of salt due to heavy rains. The ITO noted that the auditors' remarks were based on information from the company's directors and that no similar loss was observed for other industrial salts. Additionally, the ITO pointed out the absence of claims made to salt authorities and the basis for valuing the closing stock. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, relying on past history where similar losses were accepted. The Departmental Representative argued that each year should be independently assessed and past history should not influence current assessments. He also contended that the CIT(A) should not have relied on monthly statements not submitted to the ITO. The assessee's counsel argued that the ITO could have verified the monthly statements submitted to the salt department, which were part of government records. The counsel highlighted that the loss percentage for the year was 44.68%, lower than in previous years, and supported by monthly returns and the auditor's report. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 2,50,000 disallowance, noting that such losses were a recurring feature in the salt manufacturing business and had been accepted in previous years. The Tribunal found no comparable case showing the loss claimed was excessive and emphasized the reliability of the monthly returns submitted to the salt department. Issue 2: Deletion of Rs. 10,000 from commission by the CIT(A) The ITO disallowed Rs. 10,000 out of Rs. 79,841 paid as commission to a sister concern, arguing it was excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance. The Departmental Representative argued that the disallowance should be sustained due to the relationship between the assessee company and the sister concern. The assessee's counsel contended that the commission was paid according to an agreement from 1974, and the rate had not increased despite an increase in sales. The agreement specified the services to be rendered and included a security deposit by the agents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, noting that the commission rate had remained the same since 1974 and no disallowance had been made in previous years. Issue 3: Deletion of Rs. 20,000 vehicle expenses by the CIT(A) The ITO disallowed Rs. 20,000 out of vehicle expenses, treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance. The Departmental Representative argued that the disallowance should be sustained based on the ITO's reasons. The assessee's counsel argued that the expenses were for maintaining and running an old truck and were of a revenue nature. The ITO's observations supported this, as the expenses were for spare parts and maintenance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, agreeing that the expenses were of a revenue nature and the disallowance was not valid. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of the disallowances for loss, commission, and vehicle expenses.
|
