2015 (9) TMI 910 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of scrap - CIT(A) valuing the scrap at estimated market rate and confirming the addition of notional imaginary income - Held that - With regard to valuation made by the chartered engineer,we are of the opinion that the FAA had correctly held that the certificate of the engineer was of no help as it was prepared after a long time of generation of scrap - FAA had correctly held that the certificate of the engineer was of no help as it was prepared after a long time of generation of scrap.We find that the FAA has considered all the relevant factors before deciding the issue and has rightly held that the sale of scrap shown by the assessee was on the lower side.Comparative analysis of the income generated and scrap sold and the figures of scrap lost/abandoned also prove that the stand of the FAA with regard to lesser generation of scrap during the year under appeal was justified.However,we are inclined to accept the alternate argument of the assessee. After considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,we are of the opinion that to meet the end of justice the estimated addition should be restricted to ₹ 50,00,000/in place of ₹ 83,15,244/. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of scrap and addition of notional income.
2. Taxation of estimated income from scrap.
3. Excessive repairs and maintenance costs.
4. Genuineness of expenditure on repairs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Scrap and Addition of Notional Income:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to value the scrap at an estimated market rate, leading to an addition of notional income of Rs. 83,15,244. The assessee argued that the valuation did not consider the quality of rusted scraps, commercial expediency, and operational challenges like Naxalite activities, transportation issues, and excise complications. The AO observed that the scrap generation and income from its sale were disproportionately low compared to the material intake. The FAA noted that the AO did not conclusively prove inflation in purchases and material usage for repairs. The FAA estimated that 25% of the average purchase cost of materials was a reasonable value for the scrap, resulting in an income estimate of Rs. 90,04,000 from scrap sales.

2. Taxation of Estimated Income from Scrap:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) taxed estimated income from scrap that had not accrued, ignoring the concept of real income. The FAA determined that the AO's estimation of 35% of revenue as repair expenditure was unsupported by evidence. Instead, the FAA calculated the probable income from scrap based on the average purchase cost and market value, which was more reasonable. The FAA directed the AO to add Rs. 83,15,244 instead of Rs. 2,39,29,400, considering factors like location and transportation difficulties.

3. Excessive Repairs and Maintenance Costs:
The AO found the repair costs excessive and not justified by the material purchased. The assessee argued that the repairs were necessary due to the operational environment and the age of the cranes. The FAA partially agreed with the AO, noting that the scrap generation was low compared to the expenditure. However, the FAA did not support the AO's 35% estimation of repair costs, instead using a more detailed analysis to estimate the scrap value. The FAA's approach led to a lower addition of Rs. 83,15,244.

4. Genuineness of Expenditure on Repairs:
The Revenue's appeal argued that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to Rs. 83,15,244 from Rs. 2,39,29,400, as the assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure's genuineness. The AO questioned the transactions with suppliers listed as 'bogus' by the Sales Tax Department. The FAA considered affidavits and confirmations from suppliers, concluding that the AO's rejection of purchases was not entirely justified. The FAA acknowledged the assessee's operational challenges but still found the scrap generation low. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the FAA's decision was reasonable, reducing the addition to Rs. 50,00,000 to meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the AO and the assessee. It recognized the operational difficulties faced by the assessee but also found the scrap generation and repair costs to be inadequately justified. The final addition was reduced to Rs. 50,00,000, balancing the interests of both parties. The order was pronounced on 31st August 2015.

← Previous Next →