2012 (10) TMI 513 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained purchase u/s 69C - Disallowance of expenditure and depreciation - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As decided in ACIT, Versus /s Blue Luxury Impex Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Alfa Engitech (P) Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 467 - ITAT DELHI section 69C clearly refers to the source of the expenditure and not to the expenditure itself. As in this case books of account were duly produced before the AO who examined them, on examination, no negative observation there against was recorded by the Assessing Officer. Complete names and addresses of the parties to whom the goods were sold were available with the Assessing Officer. The sale transactions were got confirmed by the Assessing Officer on a test check basis. No more inquiries were made. The assessee s books of account were audited books of account. The tax audit report was on record. The auditors had not made any negative observation therein. Thus, source of the expenditure incurred in purchases is obviously explained - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against CIT (A) order for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 - Department's grievance on deletions of additions under section 69C of the IT Act and disallowance of expenditure and depreciation claimed by assessee.

Analysis:
The department filed appeals against the CIT (A) order for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09, challenging the deletions of additions under section 69C of the IT Act and disallowance of 50% of expenditure and depreciation claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the purchases claimed by the assessee, treating them as unexplained/unaccounted expenditure under section 69-C of the Act. However, the assessee contended that the profit from the sale of goods had already been taxed, and the purchases were duly accounted for in its books of account. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted the additions under section 69C, noting that the books of account were not rejected by the Assessing Officer, and relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in a similar case.

The assessee argued that the matter was covered in their favor by a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in another case. The Tribunal considered the similarities between the cases, including the nature of trade, maintenance of books and stock registers, and lack of negative observations by the Assessing Officer. It was noted that the sales and purchases were part of stock conversion, with profits already taxed, and no evidence of undisclosed income was found by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT (A) had considered all relevant facts before deciding in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found no error in the Ld. CIT (A) orders and confirmed them, rejecting the department's grounds of appeal. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that the provisions of section 69-C were not applicable in the given circumstances. Consequently, the department's appeals were dismissed, and the cross objections by the assessee were deemed academic and dismissed as well. The order was pronounced in open court on the specified date.