2013 (12) TMI 550 - HC - Income Tax

Freight and forwarding expenditure - Held that - The Assessing Officer and the higher authorities fell into error in relying solely on the testimony and deposition of one Vineet Bhargava who stated that the freight expenses did not reflect actual expenditure or transactions - The pre-condition for adding back such amounts or disallowing the expenditure so that it could attract Section 68 was the exactitude with which the transaction could be pin pointed - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained income - Held that - This credit balance had been reflected in the previous years books and also subjected to assessment - No question of law arises for interpretation in this appeal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of ITAT directions to add alleged bogus freight and forwarding expenditure.
2. Error in adding outstanding credit balance in the name of a company.

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised two questions of law in the appeal under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act. Firstly, challenging the ITAT directions to add Rs.22 lakhs as alleged bogus freight and forwarding expenditure through an estimating exercise. Secondly, disputing the addition of Rs.6,84,22,895 on account of outstanding credit balance in the name of a specific company.

2. The facts revealed that the appellant's premises and other group companies underwent search and seizure proceedings. Subsequently, notices were issued requiring the disclosure of undisclosed income. Special audit under Section 142 (2) (A) was ordered due to the complexity of accounts. The appellant did not cooperate with the special auditors, leading to difficulties in the audit process.

3. The Assessing Officer framed an assessment order adding a total of Rs.9,71,23,895. The appellant contested the addition of Rs.22 lakhs for alleged bogus expenses and the addition of Rs.6,84,22,895 on account of unexplained cash credit. The appellant argued that the authorities erred in relying solely on the testimony of a witness regarding the freight expenses.

4. Regarding the Rs.22 lakhs addition, the appellant claimed that the testimony relied upon was not conclusive and did not specifically pertain to them. However, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the addition, as the appellant failed to challenge or rebut the witness's deposition.

5. Concerning the Rs.6,84,22,895 addition, the appellant argued that this amount was reflected in previous balance sheets and was subject to regular assessment. However, the court held that the appellant's failure to substantiate this credit balance during the proceedings indicated discrepancies, leading to the conclusion that the credit balance was part of unwarranted expenditure to reduce tax burden.

6. The court reviewed the detailed assessment order and evidence presented, concluding that the additions made by the authorities were justified based on the evidence provided. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose for interpretation in this case.

7. In summary, the court upheld the additions made by the authorities, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims and providing conclusive evidence to support expenses and credit balances. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.