2012 (12) TMI 461 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 40A(2)(a)(b) on the ground that the assessee had allowed discount @ 3% to M/s Ganga Pustakalaya (sister concern) while to the other whole sellers it was allowed @ 2.5%? - held that - The Tribunal has found that the assessee had offered 2.5% on the counter sales whereas 3% discount was given to sister concern, M/s Sri Ganga Pustakalay, which was carrying the sale outside Varanasi and incurring the expenses on account of packing, transportation etc. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance under Section 40A(2) of the Act. The Tribunal has further held that the provisions of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act would apply where any deduction is claimed towards excessive and unreasonable expenditure has been incurred by assessee but in the present case neither any expenditure has been incurred nor any deduction has been claimed for the amount which has been charged less than that from other customers, thus provision would not apply. It is not disputed that the assessee has neither claimed any deduction as expenditure incurred towards discount offer nor the lesser price charged by it. Order of ITAT confirmed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 40-A (2) (a) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for offering different discounts to sister concern and other customers.
2. Applicability of Section 40A (2) of the Act in respect of the addition made on the sale of books to the sister concern.

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 40-A (2) (a) (b) for offering different discounts:
The respondent-assessee, a printing and publication business, offered a 3% discount to its sister concern, M/s Ganga Pustakalaya, while providing a 2.5% discount to other wholesale customers. The Assessing Officer disallowed the half percent difference under Section 40-A (2) (a) and (b) of the Act, adding Rs.15,97,401 to the income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's claim, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal reasoned that the higher discount to the sister concern was due to additional expenses incurred by them for sales outside Varanasi. It held that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in making the disallowance under Section 40A(2) of the Act, as no excessive or unreasonable expenditure was claimed by the assessee for the discount offered. The Tribunal correctly concluded that Section 40A (2) (a) did not apply in this case, as no deduction was claimed for the lesser price charged to the sister concern.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 40A (2) in respect of addition on sale of books to sister concern:
The respondent-assessee sold Bhargav Dictionary to its sister concern at a lower price, resulting in the addition of Rs.15,97,401 under Section 40-A (2) (a) and (b) of the Act. The Revenue contended that there was no justification for the lower price to the sister concern and that the assessing authority's order should be restored. However, the Tribunal found that the price difference was due to the sister concern incurring additional expenses for sales outside Varanasi. It held that Section 40A (2) (a) did not apply in this case, as no excessive or unreasonable expenditure was claimed by the assessee for the lower price charged to the sister concern. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that the provisions of Section 40A (2) of the Act were not attracted in this scenario.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the order did not have any legal infirmity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the respondent-assessee.