2015 (3) TMI 889 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - deposit of tds into the credit of the Central Government account after the due date prescribed under section 200 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As pointed out by the appellant and accepted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, individuals were not required to deduct tax under section 194C prior to June 1, 2007. Hence, since tax was not deductible by the assessee, no disallowances can be made under sec tion 40(a)(ia) for the present assessment year even though the tax deducted was paid beyond the date provided in section 200(1). Thus accept the submission of the appellant, which has been endorsed by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, that since tax was not deductible under section 194C, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance of ₹ 9,09,421 made by the Assessing Officer is, therefore, deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Additions on account of excessive consumption, invisible loss shown by the assessee - Held that - We were impressed by the demonstration shown before us that how particular nut was carved out of a solid piece and of balance solid material can be used only as a scrap. There is a further argument that when records of the assessee have been accepted by the excise authorities then how same can be doubted by the Income-tax authorities. However, at the same time it is also a fact that the assessee has changed certain figures twice though learned counsel for the assessee tried to justify the same. We do not find much force in them. However, at the same time it cannot be denied that the assessee has suffered excessive shortage because of sophisticated nature of products and same was within the norms given by various Government agencies. Therefore, in our opinion, in this case ultimately the wastage has to be estimated on reasonable basis. Considering overall facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if an addition of ₹ 10 lakhs is made on account of excessive wastage/invisible loss. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to make total addition of ₹ 10 lakhs on account of wastage and invisible loss, etc. instead of three additions of ₹ 9,09,421, ₹ 2,79,398 and ₹ 19,89,240. This position was accepted by learned counsel for the assessee as well as the son of the assessee. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition on account of excessive consumption and invisible loss.
3. Addition on account of excessive consumption as per standard input/output norms.
4. Non-admission of additional evidence by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
5. Alleged double addition by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
6. Disallowance of purchases and alternative submission regarding scrap.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 40(a)(ia):
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 9,09,421 under section 40(a)(ia). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this amount as the assessee deposited TDS late. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) deleted the addition, agreeing with the AO's remand report that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS for the year in question. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that since tax was not deductible under section 194C, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia).

2. Addition on Account of Excessive Consumption and Invisible Loss:
The AO made various additions due to discrepancies in raw material consumption and sales data provided by the assessee. The AO noted excessive consumption and invisible loss, leading to additions of Rs. 19,89,240 and Rs. 12,05,600. The assessee argued that the AO's calculations were incorrect and provided revised figures and a chartered engineer's report. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions, but the Tribunal found that the assessee's wastage was within government norms and directed a total addition of Rs. 10 lakhs instead of the three separate additions.

3. Addition on Account of Excessive Consumption as per Standard Input/Output Norms:
The AO disallowed purchases and consumption based on discrepancies in the assessee's records and standard input/output norms. The assessee contended that the AO's theoretical calculations were flawed and provided a chartered engineer's report to justify the wastage. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions, but the Tribunal reduced the total addition to Rs. 10 lakhs, recognizing the sophisticated nature of the products and the wastage within government norms.

4. Non-Admission of Additional Evidence by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence, including a chartered engineer's report. The CIT(A) referred the submissions to the AO for a remand report, which was then considered. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's efforts to provide additional evidence and adjusted the total addition to Rs. 10 lakhs.

5. Alleged Double Addition by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) made a double addition by confirming both Rs. 19,89,240 and Rs. 12,05,600. The Tribunal addressed this by consolidating the additions into a single total addition of Rs. 10 lakhs, thus resolving the issue of double addition.

6. Disallowance of Purchases and Alternative Submission Regarding Scrap:
The AO disallowed purchases based on discrepancies and alleged over-invoicing. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, supported by bills and bank payments, and that any addition should only pertain to scrap. The Tribunal considered the assessee's arguments and reduced the total addition to Rs. 10 lakhs, acknowledging the genuine nature of the purchases and the reasonable wastage within government norms.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing a total addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of wastage and invisible loss instead of the separate additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The order was pronounced on December 31, 2013.

← Previous Next →