2015 (2) TMI 818 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on excess consumption of heptene and catalyst - Tribunal deleted the addition - Held that - From the discussion of the Tribunal, it clearly emerges that the assessee had given reasons for excess consumption of heptene and catalysts. The change in the manufacturing process was also demonstrated. Such grounds were also placed before the Tribunal in the earlier years in which the assessee's stand was accepted. We have also perused the orders of the Tribunal made in the earlier assessment years, i.e., the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 where such a question cropped up. Apparently, the Revenue has not carried the decision of the Tribunal in further appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee. Lease agreement and buy back entered with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board - Revenue vehemently contended that the machinery was purchased and leased back on the same day without actual payment - tribunal held the lease transaction as financial lease transaction - Held that - Notice on the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has merely remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, after full opportunity to the assessee as AO has not brought anything on record with respect to the treatment given by the assessee to the income received and on the disputed lease transactions. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of foreign travelling expenses - AO disallowed the claim as the assessee failed to establish that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business - CIT(A) and Tribunal, merely referring to their earlier orders in the case of this very assessee, allowed the claim - Held that - CIT(A) and Tribunal committed an error in allowing the expenditure without its full verification. Surely, the foreign travelling expenses, if incurred for the purpose of business, would be allowable as the business expenditure. However, the assessee has to establish that the travelling was undertaken for the purpose of business, and, therefore, the expenditure was business expenditure . Merely because on the basis of the material for the earlier years, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed such expenditure would not by itself mean that in the later years also, any expenditure under the same head must be automatically allowed. The assessee owed a duty to establish the basic facts to demonstrate, particularly when called upon by the Assessing Officer that the expenditure was in fact incurred for the purpose of business. The issue must be examined on year-to- year basis on the basis of evidence on record. - Decided in favour of revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessee furnishing required information before the Assessing Officer.
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition on account of excess consumption of heptene.
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition on account of excess consumption of catalyst.
4. Whether the Tribunal erred in not holding the lease transaction as a financial lease transaction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Furnishing Required Information
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision that the assessee had furnished the required information before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal mechanically allowed the expenditure referring to their earlier decision in the case of the assessee. The issue must be examined on a year-to-year basis on the basis of evidence on record. The question was answered in favor of the Revenue, reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, and restoring the Assessing Officer's decision.

Issue 2: Excess Consumption of Heptene
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 96,43,855 made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess consumption of heptene. The Assessing Officer had observed a larger quantity of heptene consumption during the assessment year 1996-97 compared to earlier years and made a matching addition. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, relying on the orders for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided reasons for the excess consumption and maintained complete quantity records as per central excise laws, with no defects found. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no question of law arising.

Issue 3: Excess Consumption of Catalyst
The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 86,87,381 on account of excess consumption of catalyst. The Assessing Officer had made the addition based on the consumption figures for the assessment year 1993-94, ignoring the figures for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, finding no justification for the rejection of books and consequent addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the assessee maintained complete quantity records and no defects were found. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no question of law arising.

Issue 4: Lease Transaction
The Tribunal remanded the issue of the lease transaction back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer treated the transaction as a device to reduce the incidence of tax but did not bring anything on record regarding the treatment given by the assessee to the income received. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. but clarified that the Assessing Officer would consider all applicable case law.

Conclusion:
The High Court disposed of the tax appeal by addressing each issue comprehensively. The Tribunal's decisions on the excess consumption of heptene and catalyst were upheld, while the issue of the lease transaction was remanded for reconsideration. The question regarding the furnishing of required information was answered in favor of the Revenue, reversing the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal and restoring the Assessing Officer's decision.

← Previous Next →