9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 278 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained expenses u/s 69C Entire sales represents income from undisclosed sources or not - Held that - Following the decision in ACIT, Central Circle-21 New Delhi Versus Glorious Club Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 440 - ITAT DELHI CIT(A) found that sales had been made by account payee cheques and duly reflected in stock registers and supported by sale and purchase vouchers the AO in his remand report did not comment adversely on the contentions of the assessee in respect of purchases and sales thus, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions - source of the expenditure incurred in purchases is obviously explained - the Revenue did not place any material for controverting the findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A) - the addition in question was wrongly made u/s 69C of the Act as the expenditure was accounted for in the regular books of account and hence the source is obviously explained thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue. Disallowance of expenditure and depreciation Held that - Following the decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus /s Blue Luxury Impex Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Alfa Engitech (P) Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 467 - ITAT DELHI - in the absence of any basis, when the Revenue did not even identity any specific amount of expenditure, which was not related to the business of the assessee, the order of the CIT(A) is to be upheld Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Non-confirmation of the Assessing Officer's observation regarding undisclosed income from sales. 3. Deletion of 100% disallowance of expenditure and depreciation claimed by the assessee. 4. Jurisdictional validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3). Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 69C: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 28,90,252/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C, which pertains to unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by various decisions of the Tribunal, including the case of Glorious Club Pvt. Ltd. and Blue Luxury Index Pvt. Ltd. It was established that the entire purchases added by the Assessing Officer were accounted for in the books of account. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 69C focuses on the "source" of the expenditure, not on the authenticity of the expenditure itself. Since the purchases and sales were accounted for in the books, the source was explained, making Section 69C inapplicable. 2. Non-confirmation of Undisclosed Income from Sales: The Tribunal upheld the findings of the First Appellate Authority that the sales made by the assessee were reflected in the stock registers and supported by sale and purchase vouchers. The Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account nor provided any adverse comments in the remand report. The sales were made through account payee cheques, and the source of the expenditure was duly explained. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, consistent with previous decisions. 3. Deletion of 100% Disallowance of Expenditure and Depreciation: The Tribunal noted that the issue of 100% disallowance of expenditure and depreciation claimed by the assessee was also covered by the orders of the ITAT in similar cases. The Tribunal referred to the case of ACIT Vs. Blue Luxury Index Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the Assessing Officer did not point out any specific expenditure warranting disallowance. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the First Appellate Authority's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue. 4. Jurisdictional Validity of Assessment Order under Section 153C read with Section 143(3): The assessee challenged the jurisdictional validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was time-barred and without jurisdiction. However, since the Tribunal decided the issues on merits in favor of the assessee, it did not find it necessary to adjudicate the jurisdictional grounds raised in the cross objections, considering it an academic exercise. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the findings of the First Appellate Authority on all grounds, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal confirmed that the additions made under Section 69C were not justified as the expenditure was accounted for in the regular books of account. The disallowance of expenditure and depreciation was also not warranted as the Assessing Officer did not identify any specific non-business-related expenditure. The cross objections raised by the assessee on jurisdictional grounds were disposed of as academic, given the favorable decision on merits. Result: All appeals and cross objections were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2014.
|
