9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 661 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of warranty provision - Contingent nature of warranty provision - Held that - authorities below are expected to follow the principle of consistency in the light of orders passed by ITAT and first appellate authority in assessee s own case in earlier assessment years - there was a calculation mistake at the end of Assessing Officer which was later corrected by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), therefore, it is appropriate to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction that he will decide the issue of assessee s claim pertaining to provision of warranty in the light of earlier orders of the Tribunal and first appellate authority for the earlier assessment years in assessee s case - Decided in favour of assessee. Rejection of books of accounts - Rejection of application u/s 46A - Held that - Assessee company filed only journal of April, July, October, 2006 and March 2007 before the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act with an observation that the books of accounts are not properly maintained and in absence of complete ledger, cash book and vouchers, it is not possible to verify trading results or expenses claimed by the assessee - the books of accounts are necessary evidence for the assessment proceedings and the assessee is bound to cooperate with the Assessing Officer by submitting relevant evidence as per requirements of the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has specifically mentioned in the remand report that despite several opportunities to the assessee, the complete books of accounts, bills and vouchers related to the claim of expenses were not submitted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of 20% of expenses on estimated basis on account of non-production of books of accounts, bills and vouchers despite affording adequate opportunity to the assessee for submission of the same. The Assessing Officer also made a contention in the remand report that the Assessing Officer has never refused to admit any evidence nor there was a position that the assessee is prevented by any sufficient cause for producing the evidence in spite of the fact that sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee for submitting the evidence in question i.e. production of books of accounts, bills/vouchers - Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts by holding that the assessee s accounts were incomplete and incorrect without substantiating anything to prove that its accounts were incomplete and incorrect. Books of accounts of the assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer on baseless reasons which prevented the assessee to produce relevant evidence in support of his claim - Commissioner of Income Tax(A) also rejected the application of the assessee u/s 46A of the Rules without going to the root of the cause which prevented the assessee to produce relevant evidence before the Assessing Officer - claim of the assessee pertaining to total expenses claimed in the Profit & loss account have not been duly verified, evaluated and adjudicated by the authorities below - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowances on account of provision for warranty: Rs 16,71,816/- 2. Disallowances on account of Expenses claimed to the tune of Rs 1,19,76,341/- Detailed Analysis: Ground No. 1: Disallowances on Account of Provision for Warranty: Rs 16,71,816/- The assessee contested the disallowance of warranty provision amounting to Rs. 16,71,816/- confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXI. The Commissioner had initially granted partial relief by correcting a calculation error made by the Assessing Officer (AO), reducing the disallowance from Rs. 30,92,037/- to Rs. 16,71,816/-. The assessee argued that this disallowance was unjustified, citing a previous favorable ruling by the ITAT Delhi 'B' Bench for AY 2005-06, which had upheld the deletion of a similar disallowance by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO had disallowed the warranty provision on the grounds that it was a contingent liability, similar to a previous disallowance for AY 2005-06, which was later allowed in appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistency in following precedents set by earlier orders. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for reconsideration in light of the earlier orders, allowing ground no. 1 of the assessee. Ground No. 2: Disallowances on Account of Expenses Claimed to the Tune of Rs 1,19,76,341/- The assessee also challenged the partial disallowance of Rs. 1,19,76,341/- out of total expenses claimed, which was made on an ad hoc basis by the AO due to non-production of books of accounts. The AO had rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, citing incomplete and incorrect accounts. The CIT(A) upheld this rejection and refused to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A. The Tribunal examined whether the AO was justified in rejecting the books of accounts and whether the CIT(A) was correct in rejecting the additional evidence. The Tribunal observed that the books of accounts were essential evidence and noted that the AO had provided several opportunities for the assessee to submit them, which the assessee failed to do. The Tribunal also referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Subbu Shashank, which emphasized the duty of the assessee to produce all evidence before the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of the books of accounts was not justified as the assessee's accounts were audited, and no adverse audit opinion was given. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence without considering the reasonable cause that prevented the assessee from producing the books of accounts initially. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to reassess the expenses claimed by the assessee after considering the books of accounts and additional evidence. Ground no. 2 was allowed, and the issue was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was disposed of by restoring both issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 31.5.2013.
|
