1989 (2) TMI 157 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Suppressed sales of Rs. 23.63 lakhs.
2. Suppressed scrap generation of Rs. 63,092.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 24,261 out of sales promotion expenses.
4. Refusal to grant extra shift allowance on plant and machinery.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppressed Sales of Rs. 23.63 Lakhs:

The assessee, a limited company manufacturing crown caps, was scrutinized by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for allegedly suppressing sales. The ITO questioned the high wastage percentage claimed by the assessee, who argued that manufacturing records were destroyed during the 1984 riots, supported by an FIR. The ITO conducted a physical inspection and found discrepancies in the records of raw materials and finished goods. The ITO noted that blank gate passes were pre-authenticated by excise officials, raising doubts about the accuracy of despatch records.

The ITO calculated the suppressed sales by deducting 10% for wastage and applying the average weight of tin sheets. This resulted in an alleged suppression of 3,25,350 gross crowns, valued at Rs. 33,50,967. The CIT(A) recalculated and found a discrepancy of 2,29,455 gross crowns, leading to an addition of Rs. 23,63,387.

However, the Tribunal found the ITO's calculations flawed, noting the actual wastage was around 35%, not the 34% claimed. The Tribunal also highlighted the increased gross profit percentage, which contradicted the suppression claim. The Tribunal concluded that the addition for suppressed sales was unsubstantiated and deleted it.

2. Suppressed Scrap Generation of Rs. 63,092:

The ITO alleged that the scrap generation was understated by 37,701 kgs, valued at Rs. 1,34,800. The CIT(A) adjusted this to Rs. 63,092. The assessee argued that the scrap was sold regularly to dealers without maintaining detailed records, and the ITO's claim was based on assumptions.

The Tribunal found that the ITO accepted a wastage of 10% plus 23-24%, totaling around 34%, close to the 35% claimed by the assessee. Given the slight difference and the increased gross profit percentage, the Tribunal deemed the addition for suppressed scrap generation as baseless and deleted it.

3. Disallowance of Rs. 24,261 Out of Sales Promotion Expenses:

The assessee claimed sales promotion expenses, which the ITO and CIT(A) disallowed due to insufficient details. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided monthly totals without specifying the nature of the expenses. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the details were inadequate.

4. Refusal to Grant Extra Shift Allowance on Plant and Machinery:

The assessee claimed extra shift allowance, which the CIT(A) denied, citing a lack of details. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the claim. The Tribunal upheld the refusal of the extra shift allowance.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed in part, with the Tribunal deleting the additions for suppressed sales and suppressed scrap generation, but upholding the disallowance of sales promotion expenses and the refusal of extra shift allowance.

← Previous Next →