2016 (1) TMI 488 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of loss on sale of live stock - Held that - Both the facts are contradictory i.e. on one hand the revenue from sale of milk has increased at three fold and on the other hand, there was great down fall in the business of the assessee and also assessee was not having its own business/factory premises to run the dairy business. Sale of milk in a dairy industry is based on proper mechanical system in which milk has to be stored in special dairy industry plant and thereafter after meeting the safety standard and other regular activities attached to the dairy industry including storage of milk in chilling plant followed by packaging milk to be sold in the market. Not a single piece of evidence has been produced by the assessee to both the lower authorities as well as before the Tribunal to prove the genuineness of the sale of milk. The only plea by the ld. AR taken repeatedly is that the assessee company was having opening balance of buffaloes and some buffaloes were sold and there ought to have been milk production with the resultant sale which cannot be accepted under the given circumstances. Accordingly, we do not find any force in the contentions made by the assessee and accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of loss and treating of receipt from sale of buffaloes as income from other sources - Held that - There is no dairy activity carried out by the assessee nor it seems that it possessed livestock of buffaloes in physical form and the opening balance of buffaloes in assets has been used to claim business loss as neither the assessee nor the audited balance sheet as well as the written submissions furnished are giving any indication of such transaction. We, therefore, are of the view that there was no such transactions of sale of buffaloes during the year meaning thereby that the ld. CIT(A) was correct in disallowing the loss allegedly claimed by the assessee and consequently CIT(A) was correct in sustaining the alleged sale of buffaloes as income from other sources. Disallowance of expenses relating to buffaloes - Held that - he assessee was unable to prove that dairy business was actually carried on by it during the year under appeal as the business premises were attached by Dena Bank and there was no possibility to run the business and nor any evidence is available on record to verify that assessee has actually carried out any dairy business activity at any other place other than its regular business/factory premises. As such we find no reason to differ from the view taken by the CIT(A) and accordingly uphold the order of CIT(A) Company had not carried out any business activities nor it had sold the buffaloes - whether assessee not allowed sufficient opportunity? - Held that - We have already held above that assessee was unable to prove that it was carrying on any business activity or possessing livestock in physical form and, therefore, ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that appellant had not carried out any business activity nor it had sold the buffaloes. As regards the allegation made by assessee company that Assessing Officer had not allowed sufficient opportunity, we find that there is no truth in this ground raised by the assessee company which can be verified by the observations of Assessing Officer in his assessment order, thus it is amply clear that assessee was given sufficient opportunity of being heard and, therefore, this ground of the assessee is also dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 46,40,880/- on account of loss on sale of livestock.
2. Treatment of Rs. 20,09,696/- as income from other sources instead of income from sale of milk.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 57,38,880/- as income from other sources.
4. Disallowance of expenses relating to buffaloes amounting to Rs. 4,73,616/-.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of administrative expenses.
6. Allegation of insufficient opportunity provided by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Rs. 46,40,880/- on account of loss on sale of livestock:
The Revenue's appeal was withdrawn at the outset. Thus, the Tribunal focused on the assessee's cross-objection. The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 46,40,880/- from the sale of 366 buffaloes, but the AO disallowed this due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to support the sale. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee could not substantiate the sale of buffaloes with any documentation, even at the time of the audit.

2. Treatment of Rs. 20,09,696/- as income from other sources instead of income from sale of milk:
The AO treated the income from milk sales as income from other sources, citing that the business premises were attached by Dena Bank and no dairy activity was carried out. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting the lack of evidence supporting the sale of milk. The Tribunal agreed, highlighting the contradiction between the increased milk sales and the halted business activities due to the bank's attachment of the premises.

3. Disallowance of Rs. 57,38,880/- as income from other sources:
The AO added Rs. 57,38,880/- as income from other sources, which the CIT(A) confirmed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence of the sale of buffaloes, and the auditors' note indicated no evidence of such sales. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the disallowance.

4. Disallowance of expenses relating to buffaloes amounting to Rs. 4,73,616/-:
The AO disallowed expenses related to buffaloes, which the CIT(A) confirmed. The Tribunal, agreeing with the lower authorities, noted that the assessee could not prove any dairy business activity during the year due to the attachment of the business premises by Dena Bank. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.

5. Disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of administrative expenses:
The assessee raised this ground, but the CIT(A) had already given relief by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that this ground became infructuous as the assessee had already received relief at the CIT(A) level.

6. Allegation of insufficient opportunity provided by the AO:
The assessee claimed insufficient opportunity was given by the AO. However, the Tribunal found no truth in this claim, as the AO had issued multiple notices and provided several opportunities for the assessee to present its case. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, confirming that sufficient opportunity had been given.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims regarding the sale of milk and buffaloes, and the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was given ample opportunity to present its case.

← Previous Next →