2014 (11) TMI 485 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of deduction u/s 80IB - Business of manufacturing and printing of packing material Assessee was having factory license before it started manufacturing activities or not - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that Assessee has already been granted deduction under 80IB in earlier years and therefore deduction cannot be denied in the third year - the Assessee s claim for deduction u/s 80IB has been allowed by CIT(A) and the copy of the orders are placed on record - With respect to the submission of the A.O that in the absence of power it cannot be said that Assessee could have started manufacturing process, the Assessee has submitted that its requirement of power was met through D.G sets the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue. Addition on capital introduction - Proof of credit worthiness and genuineness of cash introduction Held that - During the year Assessee had introduced fresh capital of ₹ 5,40,376/-. The Assessee was asked to give explanation in support of the source of capital to which AO has noted that Assessee neither gave any explanation nor furnished any documentary evidence nor the bank book or statement was made available to AO - CIT(A) by a cryptic order has allowed the claim of Assessee - the matter needs re-examination at the end of AO thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh examination Decided in favour of revenue. Addition of unsecured loan - Onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction Held that - Before AO Assessee did not file any confirmation to prove the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction - Before CIT(A) Assessee submitted that the lender of the amount was the father of the Assessee - the AO be granted an opportunity to examine the submission of the Assessee thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO to verify the factual position as submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A) Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition on account of capital introduction.
3. Addition on account of unsecured loan.
4. Disallowance of prior period expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IB, arguing that the assessee did not have a permanent DIC certificate, power release order, or factory premises before the stipulated date of 31.03.2004. The Assessing Officer (A.O) disallowed the deduction due to the absence of these documents, asserting that production could not have started without power and premises.

The CIT(A) found that there was no legal requirement for a permanent DIC certificate to claim the deduction and accepted the assessee's explanation that production was carried out using a DG set before the power connection was obtained. The CIT(A) also accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the factory premises, which were hired without immediate rent payment due to mutual understanding with the owner.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had been allowed the deduction in the previous two assessment years and that the Revenue had not provided contrary evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground on this issue.

2. Addition on account of capital introduction:
The A.O added Rs. 5,40,376/- as unexplained capital introduction under Section 68, as the assessee failed to provide evidence or explanation for the source of this capital. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the capital came from past savings and family support.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had allowed the claim without adequate examination and remanded the issue back to the A.O for re-examination, allowing the Revenue's ground for statistical purposes.

3. Addition on account of unsecured loan:
The A.O treated an increase in unsecured loans by Rs. 1,37,280/- as unexplained under Section 68 due to the absence of confirmation and proof of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the loan was from the assessee's father and was part of his savings.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report from the A.O and remanded the issue back to the A.O for verification of the factual position, allowing the Revenue's ground for statistical purposes.

4. Disallowance of prior period expenses:
The A.O disallowed Rs. 40,093/- as prior period expenses, which the assessee claimed were electricity expenses paid in the current year due to irregular bill issuance. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not provide contrary evidence and considering the small amount involved. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the issues of Section 80IB deduction and prior period expenses, while remanding the issues of capital introduction and unsecured loans back to the A.O for further examination. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.