9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of investment allowance. 2. Addition for alleged excessive consumption of coal. 3. Addition for alleged undisclosed sale of coal ash. 4. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure. 5. Computation of profits under Section 115J. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Investment Allowance: The assessment year in question is 1989-90, covering a period of 15 months from January 1, 1988, to March 31, 1989. The assessee installed a new solvent extraction plant with a capacity of 200 MT per day during April 1987 to January 1988 and claimed an investment allowance of Rs. 36,18,035 under Section 32A(8B). The claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) on the grounds that the assessee failed to prove that it had entered into a contract for purchasing the machinery before June 12, 1986. The assessee contended that the authorities did not properly evaluate the material on record and argued that, under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (8B), establishing a contract before June 12, 1986, was not necessary for the assessment year 1989-90. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee must establish the contract date to avail of the investment allowance. The Tribunal examined the scheme of investment allowance under Section 32A and its modifications. It noted that sub-section (8B) was introduced to provide relief for machinery or plant installed after March 31, 1987, but before April 1, 1988, if a contract was entered into before June 12, 1986. However, for machinery installed after March 31, 1988, and before March 31, 1990, no such condition was imposed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had entered into an oral contract with M/s Servotech for purchasing the plant in April 1986, supported by subsequent actions such as the preparation of a project report, a public issue of shares, and a layout of the plant. The Tribunal concluded that the contract was valid and the assessee was entitled to the investment allowance, thus allowing this ground of appeal. 2. Addition for Alleged Excessive Consumption of Coal: The AO observed variations in coal consumption for processing soya seeds and refining soya oil, leading to an inference that the assessee showed excess consumption of 1535.797 MT of coal, valued at Rs. 10,96,175. The CIT(A) further enhanced the addition by Rs. 2,08,343. The Tribunal examined the coal receipt and issue register and found that the register pertained to the issuance of coal for consumption, not actual consumption. It noted that the average coal consumption was consistent with previous years and that the addition was based on assumptions without concrete evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the entire addition of Rs. 13,04,518. 3. Addition for Alleged Undisclosed Sale of Coal Ash: The AO added Rs. 1,42,075 to the income for alleged suppression of coal ash sales, based on an estimated generation of 2550.64 MT of coal ash. The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 1,26,137. The Tribunal found that the assessee had given a contract for lifting coal ash, and the sale proceeds were not based on weight. The Tribunal held that the tax authorities' method of computing receipts was incorrect and that the assessee's method of dealing with coal ash should not be compared with others. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,26,137. 4. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenditure: The AO made a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 25,000 for miscellaneous expenses, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 15,000, citing unvouched expenses. The Tribunal found no valid foundation for the disallowance, noting that the expenses were necessary and supported by vouchers where possible. The Tribunal deleted the entire disallowance of Rs. 15,000. 5. Computation of Profits under Section 115J: This ground was consequential. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the profits under Section 115J in accordance with the law after giving effect to the Tribunal's order and the CIT(A)'s order. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee on all grounds.
|
