9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 287 - AT - Income TaxPurchases from sister concern - applicability of section 40(A)(2)(a) of the Act - held that - The AO has not pointed out that the purchases made by the assessee from PIH were excessive having regard to the fair market value of the goods. He has also not disputed the rate at which the sales were made by the assessee. The fact that assessee provided discount by way of extra cases to its customers has also not been found to be false by the AO. The AO has also not been able to bring any material on record to show as to how and in what manner the assessee intended to avoid payment of tax before invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee. Rejection of book of accounts on the ground of declaration of loss - estimation of gross profit - held that - The conclusion arrived at by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee company has been roped in merely to transfer the losses of the holding company is not based on any evidence or material. The learned CIT(A) further relied upon the rate of profit shown by other group companies but that cannot be a sole criteria to reject the assessee s books of account and then to invoke Section 40A(2)(a) for the purpose of disallowing expenses of purchases. - any estimation of gross profit at the rate of 13.73% is unwarranted. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 64,649,000 from purchases made under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Application of a Gross Profit rate by the Assessing Officer and rejection of the books. 3. Treatment of the transaction between the assessee and its holding company as not being at arm's length and considering the assessee as a shell company. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a): The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of Rs. 64,649,000 from purchases made by the assessee from PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (PIH) under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked this section, suggesting that the purchases were made at a higher price than the fair market value, resulting in a gross loss. The AO's view was based on the suspicion that the assessee was benefiting PIH by purchasing goods at inflated prices. The AO cited the Supreme Court decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO to support his stance that such transactions were colorable devices to avoid tax. However, the assessee argued that the purchases were made at market rates, which were comparable to the rates at which PIH sold goods to unrelated parties. The comparative chart and invoices provided by the assessee demonstrated that the purchase prices were at arm's length. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the purchases were excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a) was not justified. 2. Application of Gross Profit Rate and Rejection of Books: The AO rejected the assessee's books of account and applied a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 13.73%, which was shown by another group company, Aradhana Soft Drinks Co. The AO's reasoning was that the assessee declared a gross loss on trading activities, which was unusual. The AO did not point out any specific defects in the assessee's books but relied on the GP rate of a comparable company to determine the income. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to establish that the purchases were made at prices higher than the market rates. The assessee's explanation for the gross loss, due to trade discounts in a competitive market, was not disputed by the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's rejection of the books and application of the GP rate was arbitrary and not based on any concrete evidence. 3. Arm's Length Transaction and Shell Company Allegation: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the transaction between the assessee and PIH could not be treated at arm's length and that the assessee was a shell company created to transfer losses. The CIT(A) argued that the assessee's purchases were solely from PIH, and the company was acting as a conduit for PIH. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s conclusions were not supported by evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had been making purchases from PIH in previous years, and there was no instance where the purchase price was higher than the market rate. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide any material evidence to support the allegation that the assessee was a shell company or that the transactions were not at arm's length. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) did not have sufficient evidence to justify the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a), the rejection of the assessee's books, or the application of the GP rate. The Tribunal emphasized that the purchases were made at market rates and the gross loss was due to trade discounts in a competitive market. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the assessee's appeal.
|
